[AAT 케이스] 461 NZ 시민 가족 관계 비자 거절후 재고하라 이유?

[AAT 케이스] 461 NZ 시민 가족 관계 비자 거절후 재고하라 이유?
461 New Zealand Citizenship Family Relationship 비자를 신청할 때 AFP 신원조회를 제출하는 것이 좋겠다는 것입니다. 461 비자를 신청하고 나서 어떤 사유가 있어서 AFP를 제출하지 못하는 경우는 반드시 그 이유를 미리 미리 이민성에 이야기를 해 두어야 합니다. 아래 케이스는 461 비자를 신청할 때 AFP 신원조회를 제출하지 못했고 28일 안에 제출하라고 했지만 그렇게 하지 못했고 케이스오피서는 깔끔(?)하게 비자 거절을 해 버리네요 ㅠ AAT에 재심을 바로 요청하고 나중에서야 AFP 결과를 제출함으로서 AAT에서 이민성으로 재고하라고 신청서를 다시 넘깁니다. 다행히 happy ending으로 마치지만 이런 일이 발생하면 시간과 노력이 많이 필요하게 되지요. CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE 7. The issue in this case is whether the applicant has provided a statement by an appropriate authority that provides evidence about whether or not the person has a criminal history. Has the applicant provided a statement from an appropriate authority? 8. After assessing this application for a Subclass 461 visa, a delegate on behalf of the Minister sent the applicant via email to the applicant’s representative on 4 August 2021, requesting further information within 28 days, which included a request for a police certificate from Australia. On the same day, the applicant responded to the Department indicating that the applicant was in the process of renewing his passport which will assist him in obtaining a criminal history check from the Australian Federal Police. 9. No response was received. Neither were the requested police clearances submitted, nor any later evidence that they were in progress. The delegate proceeded to refuse the visa on 18 October 2021. 10. The applicant validly applied to have the refusal decision reviewed by the Tribunal on 8 November 2021 with the delegate’s decision record attached. 11. On 24 November 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant via his representative seeking a current Australian police certificate to be provided and to do so by 23 December 2021. 12. On the same day, the Tribunal further received a copy of the applicant’s National Police Certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police dated 29 October 2021. 13. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has provided statements from the appropriate authorities, as requested, and therefore meets reg 2.03AA(2)(a). 14. Based on this information, no scheduled hearing was required to reach a favourable decision in this matter. 15. On the basis of the above findings, the applicant meets reg 2.03AA(2). DECISION 16. The Tribunal remits the application for a New Zealand Citizen (Family Relationship) (Temporary) (Class UP) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 461 visa: 가능한 이런 일이 미연에 방지하여 발생하지 않는 것이 가장 효율적으로 비자처리가 될 것 같습니다. 실제케이스본문보기 아래 케이스는 또 다른 461 비자 신청인입니다. 그런데 이 케이스도 신청시 AFP 신원조회 그리고 인도 신원조회를 제출하지 않았습니다. CO는 제출하라고 했지만 아무 이야기 하고 있지 않고 있다가 거절되고 결국 AAT 신청후 AFP 및 인도 신원조회를 차례로 제출하게 됩니다. 제가 볼때는 매우 비효율적으로 일이 처리되어 안타까운 케이스가 아닐 수 없네요. CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE 7. The issue in this case is whether the applicant has provided a statement by an appropriate authority that provides evidence about whether or not the person has a criminal history. Has the applicant provided a statement from an appropriate authority? 8. When the applicant lodged this visa application, he did not provide a police check from either Australia or India where the applicant had lived for a per period of 12 months or mor,3 over the last ten years, since turning sixteen years of age. 9. On 5 October 2021, the applicant received an email which requested further information, namely current police certificates from India and Australia. Neither the applicant nor anyone on the applicant’s behalf responded this request. 10. Due to the applicant’s unresponsiveness, the delegate proceeded to refuse the visa on 15 November 2021. The applicant validly applied to have the refusal decision reviewed by the Tribunal on 19 November 2021. 11. On 23 November 2021, the Tribunal received a copy of the applicant’s police certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police issued 16 November 2021. 12. On 6 January 2022, the Tribunal received a copy of the applicant’s police certificate issued by the India’s Ministry of External Affairs issued on 22 December 2021. 13. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has provided statements from the appropriate authorities, as requested, and therefore meets reg 2.03AA(2)(a). 14. Based on this information, no scheduled hearing was required to reach a favourable decision in this matter. 15. On the basis of the above findings, the applicant meets reg 2.03AA(2). DECISION 16. The Tribunal remits the application for a New Zealand Citizen (Family Relationship) (Temporary) (Class UP) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 461 visa: 케이스전문보기 461 비자를 호주내에서 신청하거나 신청한 분들의 경우 반드시 지켜야 할 비자 조건이 있습니다. 8501 라는 조건이고 이 조건은 private insurance를 가입해야 합니다. (461 비자가 진행중일때도 또는 그란트된 후에도 사보험을 가입해야 있어야 한다는 점에 유의해야 하고 이전에 소유한 비자 그리고 현재 BV를 소지하고 있더라도 사보험 가입을 하고 있어야 비자 거절되는 일이 없게 됩니다) 아래 케이스는 이전에 사보험을 오랜 기간동안 가입하지 않아서 거절된 케이스였지만 (461 비자가 그란트된 다음에 딱 12개월만 가입한 경우임) 다행히도 AAT에서 신청인에게 손을 들어 줍니다. 그 이유는 일부러 가입을 하지 않은 것이고 잘 몰라서 가입을 하지 않았다는 것을 이해하고 그리고 향후에는 반드시 가입을 할 것이고 당장 가입을 하겠다는 했기에… 14. The Tribunal observes that the nature of the breach is that the applicant (according to information in the submitted delegate’s decision) spent a cumulative total of 38 days outside Australia since the grant of his previous Subclass 461 visa. This equates to 2419 days spent in Australia without any health insurance during his previous Subclass 461 visa validity period until the date the delegate made his decision. He made health care arrangements for only the first 12 months of his visa grant. He did not, therefore, maintain health insurance for any substantial period of time during the validity of his previous visa. the significance of the breach, especially by reference to the purposes for which the visa or entry permit was granted; 15. The breach is significant as the condition is an important prerequisite for grant of a Subclass 461 visa. The period of time over which it occurred is in the Tribunal’s opinion – extensive. whether or not the applicant deliberately flouted the condition; 케이스전문보기 아래 케이스는 AFP를 제출하지 않고 QLD에 거주하는 461 신청인은 QLD 경찰 신원조회를 제출함에 따라 거절된 케이스입니다 ㅠ 5. On 19 January 2021 the applicant was requested to provide an Australian police certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police. A police certificate from Queensland Police dated 2 March 2021 was provided in response. On 18 March 2021 the applicant was requested specifically to provide a police certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police. 6. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 13 May 2021 on the basis that the applicant did not meet reg 2.03AA because she had failed to provide a police certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police as requested. 케이스전문보기 461비자를 12019년 3월 12일 접수를 하고 2021년 3월 26일 거절될 때까지 AFP 신원조회를 제출하지 않아 거절된 케이스입니다. 이 케이스는 AFP를 제출하라고 요청도 받지 않은 대신 AAT에 재심을 신청후 청문회도 없이 신청인에게 손을 들어 줌. 왜냐하면 AFP 신원조회를 거절된 이후 즉시 신청하여 AAT에 제출했기 때문에. 좀 안타깝죠. 이민성에 제출을 그렇게 빨리 했었더라면 AAT 재심절차 없이 잘 그란트 되었을 텐데… The applicant applied for the visa on 12 March 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 26 March 2021 on the basis that the applicant did not meet reg 2.03AA because the applicant did not provide her Australian police certificate. 케이스전문보기 아래 케이스는 AFP 신원조회의 결과가 만기된 것 즉 모든 국가의 신원조회는 해당 국가에서 발행후 만 12개월 만 인정되는데 이미 만기가 지난 것을 제출해서 거절된 케이스네요 The delegate refused to grant the visa on 21 January 2021 on the basis that the applicant did not meet reg 2.03AA because she had not provided, as requested, a police certificate or other statement from an appropriate authority from countries in which she has lived for a cumulative period of 12 months or more, over the last 10 years, since turning 16 years of age. In particular the applicant had been requested to provide an updated ‘Australian Federal Police clearance National Police check’ given the previous one provided, dated 6 April 2018, had expired after 12 months. The applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal on 29 January 2021. 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. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. Last update: 2022년 3월 16일 물맑은 호주이민닷컴 이민법무사 (0208335) 신순철

461 New Zealand Citizenship Family Relationship 비자를 신청할 때 AFP 신원조회를 제출하는 것이 좋겠다는 것입니다.

461 비자를 신청하고 나서 어떤 사유가 있어서 AFP를 제출하지 못하는 경우는 반드시 그 이유를 미리 미리 이민성에 이야기를 해 두어야 합니다.

아래 케이스는 461 비자를 신청할 때 AFP 신원조회를 제출하지 못했고

28일 안에 제출하라고 했지만 그렇게 하지 못했고

케이스오피서는 깔끔(?)하게 비자 거절을 해 버리네요 ㅠ

AAT에 재심을 바로 요청하고 나중에서야 AFP 결과를 제출함으로서

AAT에서 이민성으로 재고하라고 신청서를 다시 넘깁니다.

다행히 happy ending으로 마치지만 이런 일이 발생하면 시간과 노력이 많이 필요하게 되지요.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. The issue in this case is whether the applicant has provided a statement by an appropriate authority that provides evidence about whether or not the person has a criminal history.

Has the applicant provided a statement from an appropriate authority?

8. After assessing this application for a Subclass 461 visa, a delegate on behalf of the Minister sent the applicant via email to the applicant’s representative on 4 August 2021, requesting further information within 28 days, which included a request for a police certificate from Australia. On the same day, the applicant responded to the Department indicating that the applicant was in the process of renewing his passport which will assist him in obtaining a criminal history check from the Australian Federal Police.

9. No response was received. Neither were the requested police clearances submitted, nor any later evidence that they were in progress. The delegate proceeded to refuse the visa on 18 October 2021.

10. The applicant validly applied to have the refusal decision reviewed by the Tribunal on 8 November 2021 with the delegate’s decision record attached.

11. On 24 November 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant via his representative seeking a current Australian police certificate to be provided and to do so by 23 December 2021.

12. On the same day, the Tribunal further received a copy of the applicant’s National Police Certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police dated 29 October 2021.

13. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has provided statements from the appropriate authorities, as requested, and therefore meets reg 2.03AA(2)(a).

14. Based on this information, no scheduled hearing was required to reach a favourable decision in this matter.

15. On the basis of the above findings, the applicant meets reg 2.03AA(2).

DECISION

16. The Tribunal remits the application for a New Zealand Citizen (Family Relationship) (Temporary) (Class UP) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 461 visa:

가능한 이런 일이 미연에 방지하여 발생하지 않는 것이 가장 효율적으로 비자처리가 될 것 같습니다.

실제케이스본문보기

아래 케이스는 또 다른 461 비자 신청인입니다.

그런데 이 케이스도 신청시 AFP 신원조회 그리고 인도 신원조회를 제출하지 않았습니다.

CO는 제출하라고 했지만 아무 이야기 하고 있지 않고 있다가 거절되고 결국 AAT 신청후 AFP 및 인도 신원조회를 차례로 제출하게 됩니다.

제가 볼때는 매우 비효율적으로 일이 처리되어 안타까운 케이스가 아닐 수 없네요.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. The issue in this case is whether the applicant has provided a statement by an appropriate authority that provides evidence about whether or not the person has a criminal history.

Has the applicant provided a statement from an appropriate authority?

8. When the applicant lodged this visa application, he did not provide a police check from either Australia or India where the applicant had lived for a per period of 12 months or mor,3 over the last ten years, since turning sixteen years of age.

9. On 5 October 2021, the applicant received an email which requested further information, namely current police certificates from India and Australia. Neither the applicant nor anyone on the applicant’s behalf responded this request.

10. Due to the applicant’s unresponsiveness, the delegate proceeded to refuse the visa on 15 November 2021. The applicant validly applied to have the refusal decision reviewed by the Tribunal on 19 November 2021.

11. On 23 November 2021, the Tribunal received a copy of the applicant’s police certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police issued 16 November 2021.

12. On 6 January 2022, the Tribunal received a copy of the applicant’s police certificate issued by the India’s Ministry of External Affairs issued on 22 December 2021.

13. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has provided statements from the appropriate authorities, as requested, and therefore meets reg 2.03AA(2)(a).

14. Based on this information, no scheduled hearing was required to reach a favourable decision in this matter.

15. On the basis of the above findings, the applicant meets reg 2.03AA(2).

DECISION

케이스전문보기

461 비자를 호주내에서 신청하거나 신청한 분들의 경우 반드시 지켜야 할 비자 조건이 있습니다.

8501 라는 조건이고 이 조건은 private insurance를 가입해야 합니다. (461 비자가 진행중일때도 또는 그란트된 후에도 사보험을 가입해야 있어야 한다는 점에 유의해야 하고 이전에 소유한 비자 그리고 현재 BV를 소지하고 있더라도 사보험 가입을 하고 있어야 비자 거절되는 일이 없게 됩니다)

아래 케이스는 이전에 사보험을 오랜 기간동안 가입하지 않아서 거절된 케이스였지만 (461 비자가 그란트된 다음에 딱 12개월만 가입한 경우임) 다행히도 AAT에서 신청인에게 손을 들어 줍니다. 그 이유는 일부러 가입을 하지 않은 것이고 잘 몰라서 가입을 하지 않았다는 것을 이해하고 그리고 향후에는 반드시 가입을 할 것이고 당장 가입을 하겠다는 했기에…

14. The Tribunal observes that the nature of the breach is that the applicant (according to information in the submitted delegate’s decision) spent a cumulative total of 38 days outside Australia since the grant of his previous Subclass 461 visa. This equates to 2419 days spent in Australia without any health insurance during his previous Subclass 461 visa validity period until the date the delegate made his decision. He made health care arrangements for only the first 12 months of his visa grant. He did not, therefore, maintain health insurance for any substantial period of time during the validity of his previous visa.

the significance of the breach, especially by reference to the purposes for which the visa or entry permit was granted;

15. The breach is significant as the condition is an important prerequisite for grant of a Subclass 461 visa. The period of time over which it occurred is in the Tribunal’s opinion – extensive.

whether or not the applicant deliberately flouted the condition;

케이스전문보기

아래 케이스는 AFP를 제출하지 않고 QLD에 거주하는 461 신청인은 QLD 경찰 신원조회를 제출함에 따라 거절된 케이스입니다 ㅠ

5. On 19 January 2021 the applicant was requested to provide an Australian police certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police. A police certificate from Queensland Police dated 2 March 2021 was provided in response. On 18 March 2021 the applicant was requested specifically to provide a police certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police.

6. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 13 May 2021 on the basis that the applicant did not meet reg 2.03AA because she had failed to provide a police certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police as requested.

케이스전문보기

461비자를 12019년 3월 12일 접수를 하고 2021년 3월 26일 거절될 때까지 AFP 신원조회를 제출하지 않아 거절된 케이스입니다. 이 케이스는 AFP를 제출하라고 요청도 받지 않은 대신 AAT에 재심을 신청후 청문회도 없이 신청인에게 손을 들어 줌. 왜냐하면 AFP 신원조회를 거절된 이후 즉시 신청하여 AAT에 제출했기 때문에. 좀 안타깝죠. 이민성에 제출을 그렇게 빨리 했었더라면 AAT 재심절차 없이 잘 그란트 되었을 텐데…

The applicant applied for the visa on 12 March 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 26 March 2021 on the basis that the applicant did not meet reg 2.03AA because the applicant did not provide her Australian police certificate.

케이스전문보기

아래 케이스는 AFP 신원조회의 결과가 만기된 것 즉 모든 국가의 신원조회는 해당 국가에서 발행후 만 12개월 만 인정되는데 이미 만기가 지난 것을 제출해서 거절된 케이스네요

The delegate refused to grant the visa on 21 January 2021 on the basis that the applicant did not meet reg 2.03AA because she had not provided, as requested, a police certificate or other statement from an appropriate authority from countries in which she has lived for a cumulative period of 12 months or more, over the last 10 years, since turning 16 years of age. In particular the applicant had been requested to provide an updated ‘Australian Federal Police clearance National Police check’ given the previous one provided, dated 6 April 2018, had expired after 12 months.
The applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal on 29 January 2021.
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.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

Last update: 2022년 3월 16일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

목록보기

최신이민정보

[AAT 케이스] 461 NZ 시민 가족 관계 비자 거절후 재고하라 이유?