Recaborda (Migration)

[2021] AATA 2337

Recaborda (Migration) [2021] AATA 2337 (7 April 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Master Anthony Recaborda

CASE NUMBER:  2018070

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          CLF2019/65632

MEMBER:Amanda Mendes Da Costa

DATE:7 April 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 802 visa:

·cl.802.226 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 7 April 2021 at 12.35pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa – Subclass 802 (Child) visa – no criminal history recorded for either the applicant or her partner – criminal record check provided – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 802.226

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicant applied for the visa on 12 November 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 10 December 2020.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of criminal histories regarding the applicant’s sponsor and her partner was not provided as required, to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

3. On 10 February 2021 the Tribunal received a criminal record check for the applicant’s sponsor (Nelsie Recaborda Hargrave) dated 5 February 2021 and a criminal record check for the sponsor’s partner (Lionel Alfred Hargrave) dated 8 February 2021, issued by The Republic of the Philippines, Department of Justice, National Bureau of Investigation.  These documents indicate that there is no criminal history recorded for either the applicant or her partner, in the Philippines.  In light of the new evidence received, the Tribunal is satisfied that the criterion is met and has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

4. In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s.360(2)(a) of the Act.

   DECISION

5. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 802 visa:

   ·cl.802.226 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Amanda Mendes Da Costa
   Member