Udugama Gamage (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1899

Udugama Gamage (Migration) [2022] AATA 1899 (1 June 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Thilini Wasana Udugama Gamage

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr William Enrique Diez (MARN: 0958792)

CASE NUMBER:  2206976

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/2901322

MEMBER:Mary Sheargold

DATE:1 June 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:

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

Statement made on 01 June 2022 at 2:12pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – criminal history – National Police Certificate – Immigration/Citizenship provided upon review – decision under review remitted           

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 485.216, r 2.03AA; Schedule 4, Public Interest 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 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 30 December 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 28 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 19 May 2022, the Tribunal received a copy of the applicant’s National Police Certificate – Immigration/Citizenship dated 10 May 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 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:

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

   Mary Sheargold
   Member