Smith (Migration)

This matter concerned applications for Business Skills - Business Talent (Permanent) visas (Subclass 132) made by the first named applicant and four secondary applicants. The primary dispute revolved around whether the first named applicant had provided a completed Form 80, as requested by a delegate of the Minister for character assessment. The delegate had refused the application on the basis that this form was not provided within the stipulated timeframes. The Tribunal, presided over by Senior Member R. Skaros, was tasked with reviewing this decision.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first named applicant had satisfied the requirement to provide a completed approved Form 80, as stipulated by regulation 2.03AA(2)(b) for the purposes of clause 132.213. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider the basis upon which the secondary applicants’ applications were refused, which was that they were not members of the family unit of a person holding a relevant visa, and that they had not been invited by the Minister to apply for the visa as primary applicants.

The Tribunal reasoned that the first named applicant had, on review, provided a completed Form 80, thereby satisfying the criterion that had led to the initial refusal. Regarding the secondary applicants, the Tribunal found it inappropriate to assess them against primary criteria when they had applied as members of the family unit of the first named applicant. Given that the first named applicant now met the criterion of providing the completed Form 80, the Tribunal determined that the appropriate course of action was to remit the matter for reconsideration. This reconsideration would involve assessing the first named applicant against the remaining criteria for the Subclass 132 visa and reassessing the secondary applicants' eligibility against the secondary criteria.