[AAT재심 케이스연구] 호미로 막을 것을 가래로 막다 – 파트너비자 820 – 실제케이스
안녕하세요. 비자관련 공부 및 연구도 늘 꾸준히 해야 하거든요. 업무를 통해 얻은 직접적인 경험 (direct experience)도 하지만 많은 경우 다른 분들 케이스를 보면서 간접적인 경험 (indirect experience)을 합니다. 때로는 거절될 수 있겠구나 그런데 왜라고 질문을 던져 봅니다. 오늘은 너무 이상해서 다시 보고 또 다시 봐도 애초에 왜 서류를 제출하지 않았지? 하는 궁금증 (curiosity)를 자아냅니다. 아래 내용은 820 비자가 거절되고 AAT에 접수된 다음에 다시 재고를 하라 (happy ending) 고 AAT 재심관이 판단한 전문입니다. (참고로 이 내용은 AAT 홈페이지에 가면 국적 인종 종교 아무런 관계없이 누구나다 접근이 가능하도록 되어 있습니다만 그래도 이름은 전 뺐습니다^^) Kim (Migration) [2020] AATA 2827 (28 May 2020) Last Updated: 11 August 2020 Kim (Migration) [2020] AATA 2827 (28 May 2020) DECISION RECORD DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division APPLICANT: Ms * Kim CASE NUMBER: 1912581 DIBP REFERENCE(S): BCC2017/5007479 MEMBER: P. Maishman DATE: 28 May 2020 PLACE OF DECISION: Perth DECISION: The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 visa: Regulation 2.03AA(2) Statement made on 28 May 2020 at 9:43am CATCHWORDS** MIGRATION –Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 – National Police Clearance from AFP provided –Records check reply from Korean* National Police Agency provided –decision under review remitted* LEGISLATION Migration Act 1958, s 65 Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.03AA, Schedule 2, cl 820.223 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 Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicant applied for the visa on 29 December 2017. The criteria for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa are set out in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Additional criteria are prescribed in Division 2.1 of Part 2 of the Regulations. Regulation 2.03AA of the Regulations applies where a person is required to satisfy Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4001 or 4002: r.2.03AA(1). In this case, cl.820.223(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of 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 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 17 May 2019 on the basis that the applicant did not meet r.2.03AA because she did not provide a statement from an appropriate authority about whether she has a criminal history. In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the visa applicant based on the material before it, pursuant to s.360(2)(a) of the Act. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE There is no indication the delegate requested the applicant to provide a completed Form 80. The issue in this case is whether the applicant has provided a statement by the appropriate authorities that provide evidence about whether she has a criminal history. Has the applicant provided a statement from an appropriate authority? The applicant gave the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record which summarises the issue. *The delegate says the applicant gave evidence of having resided in Australia and South Korea for more than 12 months in the last 10 years.* The applicant was requested by email on 31 December 2018 to provide statements from the appropriate authorities in Australia and South Korea. The delegate reports the Department did not receive a statement from an appropriate authority in Australia or South Korea or a claim or evidence that it was not reasonable for the statements to be provided. The delegate refused the application because the applicant did not meet regulation 2.03AA(2). The Tribunal has considered the information provided in the delegates decision record and accepts the Department requested the applicant to provide statements from the appropriate authorities in Australia and South Korea. The Department did not receive the requisite statements from the appropriate authority in Australia or South Korea, nor a claim by the applicant that it was unreasonable to provide the statements. The applicant’s representative emailed the Tribunal copies of a National Police Clearance dated 26 July 2019 from the Australian Federal Police and a Criminal (Investigation) Records Check Reply dated 23 June 2017 from the Korean National Police Agency. On 28 May 2020 the Tribunal received an updated Criminal (Investigation) Records Check Reply dated 27 May 2020 from the Korean National Police Agency. The applicant has provided statements from the appropriate authorities in countries in which she has resided about whether she has a criminal history and therefore meets r.2.03AA(2)(a). Conclusion Based on the above findings, the applicant meets r.2.03AA(2). DECISION The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 visa: Regulation 2.03AA(2). P. Maishman Member 간단한 AAT 케이스라서 전문도 길지 않습니다만 간단히 summary 하면 다음과 같습니다. 2017년 12월 29일 : 이민성에 비자 (820) 접수 2018년 12월 31일 : 신청인 추가자료 요청 받음 (호주 및 한국 신원조회 제출요청됨) 2019년 5월 17일: 비자 거절 (사유: 신원조회 미제출) 2019년 5월말 또는 6월 초에 AAT 접수했을 것으로 예상함 (거절후 21일 안에 접수해야 하기 때문) 2020년 5월 : case 검토시작된 것으로 예상함 202년 5월 28일: AAT 한국신원조회 최근 것 수령과 동시 재고하라고 케이스 종료! 제가 요약된 것처럼 1-6번 보시는 것처럼 문제될 것이 하나도 없어요. 그렇다면 왜 2번 요청을 받고 제출을 하지 않았을까? 알다가도 모르겠네요. 그래서 호미로 막을 일을 가래로 막은 모양새입니다. 즉, 아주 간단히 해결될 것으로 AAT까지 battle mode까지 가면서 마음고생을 얼마나 했을까 감히 상상히 됩니다. 지난 10년 동안 누적해서 12개월 또는 그 이상 거주한 나라가 있다면 신원조회 (criminal records)를 제출하여 만족되어야 합니다. Form 80도 제 고객님의 경우 제출하도록 저는 가이드하고 있습니다. 이 케이스 보고 다시 한번 820/309 on-shore / off-shore 파트너 비자 신청한 분들의 케이스를 들춰 보면서 돌다리도 다시 두들겨 보는 계기가 되었습니다. 제 고객님들은 이와 관련 궁금한 점은 늘 이메일로 문의주시면 빠른 답변 받으실 수 있습니다. 감사합니다. Last update: 2020년 11월 4일 호주기술이민전문 = MOMO Migration Service (since Feb 2002) Soonchul Shin Ironman RMA Skilled Migration Specialist Member of MIA MARA Registered NO (0208335) RMA 개인 Facebook(www.facebook.com/IronmanSoon) 회사 Facebook(www.facebook.com/IronmanRMA)

[AAT재심 케이스연구] 호미로 막을 것을 가래로 막다 – 파트너비자 820 – 실제케이스

안녕하세요.

비자관련 공부 및 연구도 늘 꾸준히 해야 하거든요. 업무를 통해 얻은 직접적인 경험 (direct experience)도 하지만 많은 경우 다른 분들 케이스를 보면서 간접적인 경험 (indirect experience)을 합니다. 때로는 거절될 수 있겠구나 그런데 왜라고 질문을 던져 봅니다. 오늘은 너무 이상해서 다시 보고 또 다시 봐도 애초에 왜 서류를 제출하지 않았지? 하는 궁금증 (curiosity)를 자아냅니다.

아래 내용은 820 비자가 거절되고 AAT에 접수된 다음에 다시 재고를 하라 (happy ending) 고 AAT 재심관이 판단한 전문입니다. (참고로 이 내용은 AAT 홈페이지에 가면 국적 인종 종교 아무런 관계없이 누구나다 접근이 가능하도록 되어 있습니다만 그래도 이름은 전 뺐습니다^^)

Kim (Migration) [2020] AATA 2827 (28 May 2020)

Last Updated: 11 August 2020

Kim (Migration) [2020] AATA 2827 (28 May 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT: Ms *** Kim

CASE NUMBER: 1912581

DIBP REFERENCE(S): BCC2017/5007479

MEMBER: P. Maishman

DATE: 28 May 2020

PLACE OF DECISION: Perth

DECISION: The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 visa:

Regulation 2.03AA(2)

Statement made on 28 May 2020 at 9:43am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION –Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 – National Police Clearance from AFP provided –Records check reply from Korean National Police Agency provided –decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65

Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.03AA, Schedule 2, cl 820.223

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 Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 29 December 2017. The criteria for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa are set out in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Additional criteria are prescribed in Division 2.1 of Part 2 of the Regulations.
Regulation 2.03AA of the Regulations applies where a person is required to satisfy Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4001 or 4002: r.2.03AA(1). In this case, cl.820.223(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of 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 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 17 May 2019 on the basis that the applicant did not meet r.2.03AA because she did not provide a statement from an appropriate authority about whether she has a criminal history.
In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the visa applicant based on the material before it, pursuant to s.360(2)(a) of the Act.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

There is no indication the delegate requested the applicant to provide a completed Form 80.
The issue in this case is whether the applicant has provided a statement by the appropriate authorities that provide evidence about whether she has a criminal history.

Has the applicant provided a statement from an appropriate authority?

The applicant gave the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record which summarises the issue. The delegate says the applicant gave evidence of having resided in Australia and South Korea for more than 12 months in the last 10 years. The applicant was requested by email on 31 December 2018 to provide statements from the appropriate authorities in Australia and South Korea. The delegate reports the Department did not receive a statement from an appropriate authority in Australia or South Korea or a claim or evidence that it was not reasonable for the statements to be provided. The delegate refused the application because the applicant did not meet regulation 2.03AA(2).
The Tribunal has considered the information provided in the delegates decision record and accepts the Department requested the applicant to provide statements from the appropriate authorities in Australia and South Korea. The Department did not receive the requisite statements from the appropriate authority in Australia or South Korea, nor a claim by the applicant that it was unreasonable to provide the statements.
The applicant’s representative emailed the Tribunal copies of a National Police Clearance dated 26 July 2019 from the Australian Federal Police and a Criminal (Investigation) Records Check Reply dated 23 June 2017 from the Korean National Police Agency. On 28 May 2020 the Tribunal received an updated Criminal (Investigation) Records Check Reply dated 27 May 2020 from the Korean National Police Agency.
The applicant has provided statements from the appropriate authorities in countries in which she has resided about whether she has a criminal history and therefore meets r.2.03AA(2)(a).

Conclusion

Based on the above findings, the applicant meets r.2.03AA(2).

DECISION

The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 visa:
- Regulation 2.03AA(2).

P. Maishman

Member

간단한 AAT 케이스라서 전문도 길지 않습니다만 간단히 summary 하면 다음과 같습니다.

2017년 12월 29일 : 이민성에 비자 (820) 접수
2018년 12월 31일 : 신청인 추가자료 요청 받음 (호주 및 한국 신원조회 제출요청됨)
2019년 5월 17일: 비자 거절 (사유: 신원조회 미제출)
2019년 5월말 또는 6월 초에 AAT 접수했을 것으로 예상함 (거절후 21일 안에 접수해야 하기 때문)
2020년 5월 : case 검토시작된 것으로 예상함
202년 5월 28일: AAT 한국신원조회 최근 것 수령과 동시 재고하라고 케이스 종료!

제가 요약된 것처럼 1-6번 보시는 것처럼 문제될 것이 하나도 없어요.

그렇다면 왜 2번 요청을 받고 제출을 하지 않았을까? 알다가도 모르겠네요.

그래서 호미로 막을 일을 가래로 막은 모양새입니다. 즉, 아주 간단히 해결될 것으로 AAT까지 battle mode까지 가면서 마음고생을 얼마나 했을까 감히 상상히 됩니다.

지난 10년 동안 누적해서 12개월 또는 그 이상 거주한 나라가 있다면 신원조회 (criminal records)를 제출하여 만족되어야 합니다. Form 80도 제 고객님의 경우 제출하도록 저는 가이드하고 있습니다.

이 케이스 보고 다시 한번 820/309 on-shore / off-shore 파트너 비자 신청한 분들의 케이스를 들춰 보면서 돌다리도 다시 두들겨 보는 계기가 되었습니다.

제 고객님들은 이와 관련 궁금한 점은 늘 이메일로 문의주시면 빠른 답변 받으실 수 있습니다.

감사합니다.

Last update: 2020년 11월 4일

호주기술이민전문 = MOMO Migration Service (since Feb 2002)

Soonchul Shin

Ironman RMA

Skilled Migration Specialist

Member of MIA

MARA Registered NO (0208335)

RMA 개인 Facebook(www.facebook.com/IronmanSoon)

회사 Facebook(www.facebook.com/IronmanRMA)

목록보기

최신이민정보

[AAT재심 케이스연구] 호미로 막을 것을 가래로 막다 – 파트너비자 820 – 실제케이스

Kim (Migration) [2020] AATA 2827 (28 May 2020)