Seema (Migration)

[2021] AATA 770

Seema (Migration) [2021] AATA 770 (14 January 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Navjot Seema
Mr Ravi Kant
Miss Henna Heer

CASE NUMBER:  1934441

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/5213637

MEMBER:Mark Bishop

DATE:14 January 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant and second named applicants, respectively, meet the following criteria for a Subclass 500 visa:

·cl.500.214 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

·cl.500.311 of Schedule 2 to the regulations

Statement made on 14 January 2021 at 11:44am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa–current COE provided – adequate evidence of genuine access to funds provided– decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 500,214, 500.311

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 applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicants applied for the visas on 17 October 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 29 November 2019.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of Genuine Access to Finance was not provided as required to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

3. On 8 January 2021 the Tribunal received current COE’s and Bank Statements of Account in the name of the applicant to the value of $60,071.16.

4. The secondary applicants are members of the family unit of the applicant.

5. 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.

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

   DECISION

7. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant and second named applicants, respectively, meet the following criteria for a Subclass 500 visa:

   ·cl.500.214 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   ·cl.500.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Mark Bishop
   Member