Tang (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking review of a decision to refuse a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate). The applicant had applied for the visa and indicated on the application form that he had applied for an Australian Federal Police (AFP) check within the preceding 12 months, providing a receipt number and date. However, the applicant subsequently provided a National Police Certificate issued by NSW Police, rather than the required AFP check.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of cl.485.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that a visa application must be accompanied by evidence that the applicant, and any accompanying persons aged 16 or over, had applied for an Australian Federal Police check within the 12 months immediately preceding the date of the application. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's submission of a NSW Police Certificate constituted compliance with this specific requirement.

The Tribunal reasoned that cl.485.213 imposed a mandatory requirement for an *Australian Federal Police* check, and a National Police Certificate issued by a state police force did not satisfy this criterion. Despite the applicant's assertion that he believed he was obtaining the correct check by attending a local police station, the Tribunal found that he had not applied to the AFP as required. The department had provided the applicant with an opportunity to lodge the correct AFP check, but this was not done within the specified timeframe. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not met the essential criteria for the grant of the visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant the Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485, as the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of cl.485.213.