Ruiz Coronel (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review by an applicant seeking a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate). The applicant's visa application had been refused by the delegate on the basis that she did not meet the requirements of clause 485.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by R. Skaros, was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied this clause.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had complied with the requirements of cl.485.213, which mandates that a visa application must be accompanied by evidence that the applicant, and any other person included in the application aged 16 or over, had applied for an Australian Federal Police (AFP) check within the 12 months immediately preceding the date of the visa application. The Tribunal had to consider whether the evidence provided by the applicant, including an AFP check dated 16 April 2018, satisfied this requirement, given that the application itself indicated no such check had been applied for within the relevant period.

The Tribunal reasoned that cl.485.213 imposed a strict requirement that the applicant must have *applied* for an AFP check in the 12 months before the visa application was made and must have provided *evidence* of this application with the visa application. The applicant admitted that she had not applied for the AFP check within the specified timeframe and that this was an oversight on her part. While the applicant had since obtained an AFP check, the Tribunal found that this post-application check did not satisfy the regulatory requirement. The Tribunal noted it had no discretion in this matter and, as the applicant had failed to meet the mandatory criteria of cl.485.213, she did not satisfy the requirements for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.