Sudan (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1423

Sudan (Migration) [2022] AATA 1423 (10 May 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Reetika Sudan
Mr Pawan Kumar
Master Divij Kumar

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Rajan Goel (MARN: 1679363)

CASE NUMBER:  2205171

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/375779

MEMBER:Mary Sheargold

DATE:10 May 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:

·Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) for the purposes of Public Interest Criterion 4001 and cl 485.216(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 10 May 2022 at 2:58pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Temporary) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – evidence of criminal history not provided with visa application – updated national police certificates received by tribunal – members of family unit – decision made without hearing necessary – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360(2)(a)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.03AA(2)(a), Schedule 2, cl 485, 216(1), Schedule 4, criterion 4001

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 Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicants applied for the visas on 12 March 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 4 April 2022.

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

3. On 27 April 2022, the Tribunal received updated National Police Certificates Immigration/Citizenship – Australia for the applicants aged 16 years and over, dated 12 April 2022.  In 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.

4. 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

5. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:

   ·Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) for the purposes of Public Interest Criterion 4001 and cl 485.216(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

   Mary Sheargold
   Member