SEKHON (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Mr Sekhon, against a decision to refuse him a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate). The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's failure to provide evidence of adequate health insurance at the time of his visa application. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by Amanda Mendes Da Costa, was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the relevant visa criteria.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was the interpretation of the phrase "accompanied by" as it related to the requirement for evidence of adequate health insurance under clause 485.215 of the Migration Regulations. This clause stipulated that an application must be accompanied by evidence of adequate health insurance arrangements in Australia, and that such arrangements must have been in place since the application was made. The Tribunal had to consider whether evidence submitted significantly after the lodgement of the application could satisfy this requirement.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the meaning of "accompanied by" could extend to evidence supplied shortly after the application was lodged, there must be a temporal connection to the application itself. Citing cases such as *Anand v MIAC* and *Nguyen v Minister for Immigration & Anor*, the Tribunal noted that evidence submitted days or even a week after lodgement might be considered to accompany the application. However, in this instance, the applicant provided evidence of health insurance approximately five months after lodging his application and only two days before the decision was made, which the Tribunal found to be too remote.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had failed to satisfy the health insurance requirement for the subclass 485 visa. As this was the sole relevant subclass, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.