SHAHER (Migration)

This matter concerned applications for Temporary Activity (Class GG) visas, Subclass 408, made by two applicants. The primary dispute revolved around whether the first applicant had provided a statement from an appropriate authority regarding their criminal history, as required by regulation. The decision was made by Senior Member R. Skaros of the Tribunal.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first applicant had satisfied the requirement under regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) by providing a statement from an appropriate authority concerning their criminal history. The Tribunal also considered the eligibility of the second applicant, whose application had been refused on the basis that she was not a member of the family unit of a person holding a relevant visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Department had initially refused the application due to a lack of requested police certificates, the first applicant had subsequently provided Swedish police clearance certificates and Australian Complete Disclosure certificates. The Tribunal found these documents to be statements from appropriate authorities, thus satisfying regulation 2.03AA(2)(a). Regarding the second applicant, the Tribunal noted that her application was not refused on the grounds of failing to provide police checks, and that her eligibility would be reconsidered by the Department upon remittal, given that she had also provided Australian and Swedish police clearance certificates.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Temporary Activity (Class GG) visas for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the first applicant met the criteria under regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) for a Subclass 408 visa.