Sugur (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1840

Sugur (Migration) [2022] AATA 1840 (26 May 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Bhavya Sugur

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr James Wardlaw

CASE NUMBER:  2116936

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/1081916

MEMBER:Mary Sheargold

DATE:26 May 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

·cl 485.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 26 May 2022 at 2:50pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa– Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate)) visa – applicant’s partner had his Subclass 485 visa extended – applicant is a member of the family unit of a person who holds a Subclass 485 visa – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 485.311

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 applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicant applied for the visa on 15 May 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 5 November 2021.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that the primary visa applicant’s visa had expired on 4 November 2021, and as such, she was not the member of the family unit of a person who held a Subclass 485 visa.

3. On 7 March 2022, the Tribunal received a copy of the letter from the Department confirming that the applicant’s partner had had his Subclass 485 visa extended until 22 September 2022.  Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a member of the family unit of a person who holds a Subclass 485 visa.  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 applicant 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 applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:

   ·cl 485.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Mary Sheargold
   Member