Surana (Migration) [2021] AATA 5515 (16 December 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Ms Shivani Manoj Surana
REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Yatharth Bharadwaj (MARN: 1680071)
CASE NUMBER: 2116389
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2020/2214496
MEMBER:K. Chapman
DATE:16 December 2021
PLACE OF DECISION: Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:
·Regulation 2.03AA(2).
Statement made on 16 December 2021 at 11:58am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – criminal history – statement from an appropriate authority – Immigration/Citizenship Certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) – decision under review remittedLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.03AA; Schedule 2, cl 485.216; Schedule 4, PIC 4001
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
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 31 August 2020. The criteria for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa are set out in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (‘the Regulations’). Additional criteria are prescribed in Division 2.1 of Part 2 of the Regulations.
Regulation 2.03AA applies where a person is required to satisfy Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4001 or 4002: r.2.03AA(1). In this case, cl.485.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations requires the applicant to meet PIC 4001. The applicant is therefore required to satisfy the criterion in r.2.03AA(2).
Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requires that, if requested, the applicant has provided a statement from a relevant authority in a country where the person resides or has resided that provides evidence about whether or not the person has a criminal history. Regulation 2.03AA(2)(b) requires that, if requested, the applicant has provided a completed approved Form 80. The Tribunal may waive the requirement in r.2.03AA(2)(a) if it is not reasonable for the applicant to provide the statement: r.2.03AA(3). The Tribunal cannot waive the requirement for the applicant to provide a completed Form 80.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on 1 November 2021 on the basis that the applicant did not meet r.2.03AA, because they failed to provide an Immigration/Citizenship Certificate from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) as requested.
The Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary in this matter, 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.
Accordingly, for the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant has provided a statement by an appropriate authority in Australia that provides evidence about whether or not they have a criminal history.
Has the applicant provided a statement from an appropriate authority?
The Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate made a request for the applicant to provide an Immigration/Citizenship Certificate from an appropriate authority, which in this case is the AFP, pertaining to a country where the applicant resides or has resided. In the circumstances, the applicant must provide the requested statement to satisfy r.2.03AA.
The applicant submitted to the Tribunal a copy of an Immigration/Citizenship Certificate dated 17 November 2021 issued by the AFP. The Certificate indicates there are no disclosable court outcomes recorded against the applicant’s name. Accordingly, the applicant has provided a statement from an appropriate authority and therefore satisfies r.2.03AA(2)(a).
There is no evidence that the delegate made a request for the applicant to provide a completed approved Form 80, therefore the requirement in r.2.03AA(2)(b) does not apply.
On the basis of the above findings, the applicant satisfies r.2.03AA(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:
·Regulation 2.03AA(2).
K. Chapman
Member
- AGLC
- Surana (Migration) [2021] AATA 5515
- Case
- [2021] AATA 5515
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) by providing a statement from an appropriate authority, specifically the Australian Federal Police (AFP), concerning their criminal history in Australia. The Tribunal also considered whether a request for a completed Form 80 had been made by the delegate, which would engage regulation 2.03AA(2)(b).
The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided an Immigration/Citizenship Certificate issued by the AFP, dated 17 November 2021, which stated there were no disclosable court outcomes recorded against the applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had met the requirement of regulation 2.03AA(2)(a). Furthermore, the Tribunal noted there was no evidence that the delegate had requested a Form 80, rendering regulation 2.03AA(2)(b) inapplicable.
Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant satisfied regulation 2.03AA(2). The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant meets the criteria under regulation 2.03AA(2) for a Subclass 485 visa.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.