**Researching case law** I need to look into relevant case law, especially decisions from federal courts. I'm considering cases like Valcoli and the case of Minister for Immigration v. Aydin. It would be good to search for federal court decisions regarding CVCheck and whether non-AFP certificates satisfy regulation 485.213. This will help ensure I have the right legal context and insights for my analysis. Let’s see what I can find through my search!**Searching for legislation details** I think the tool might struggle with complex queries. However, I found some useful sources, like legislation.gov.au for regulations and bridging visas. The Migration Law Updates site had articles about relevant cases too. I need to make sure to cite regulation 485.213 accurately. While I have the text from Scribd, it’s better to reference it directly from legislation.gov.au, particularly schedule 2 clause 485.213. Let’s go ahead and search for "485.213" on that site!**Clarifying tribunal changes** There's been a reform where the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) is replacing the AAT starting in October 2024. It's important to direct individuals to lodge reviews with the appropriate tribunal depending on the structure. I'll need to use up-to-date sources for references, specifically noting ART and fees as of September 2025. A key issue seems to be a refusal based on a failure to comply with regulation 485.213 regarding the necessary AFP clearance within a designated timeframe.**Exploring legal possibilities** I see two potential scenarios for the applicant regarding the AFP check. It’s possible they applied using the wrong service or form, like a Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check through state police or CVCheck. I could argue that the regulation merely requires an Australian Federal Police check, not a specific 'Complete Disclosure' product. I need to find relevant case law, as there may be mixed outcomes. If I can't locate specific legal precedents, I should consider the implications of the decision boundary regarding uncertainty.**Outlining recommended steps** I recommend that the applicant apply for a merits review as soon as possible. It’s crucial to include evidence like the Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check certificate, along with receipts, screenshots, and emails showing the application date within the last year. If possible, they should also obtain a new AFP Complete Disclosure Immigration/Citizenship check. Additionally, they can request the tribunal to remit the decision or substitute a favorable one. They should apply for another bridging visa to maintain lawful status, as their current visa remains valid during the merits review process.**Advising on Bridging Visa Form** I need to clarify the situation with Form 1005, which is the Application for a Bridging Visa. The current bridging visa was granted alongside the substantive application, but I can't use ImmiAccount for further applications. The decision record specifies using Form 1005. I should outline the procedure: fill out Form 1005 and attach proof of the AAT application. However, I want to double-check, as Form 1005 seems to be specifically for bridging visas during merits review. Let’s search to confirm this.**Reviewing visa procedures** I need to focus on the bridging visa forms, especially Form 1005, which is recommended. The client should lodge the AAT/ART merits review online right away, including the decision letter and record. It’s essential to gather evidence like the NCCH certificate and relevant receipts. The argument can be made that the evidence meets regulations or that there's been an error in interpretation. I should also consider the bridging visa's status and the possibility of submitting a new application for subclass 485, but only under limited circumstances. I'll check Form 1026i as well.**Gathering AAT application steps** I need to outline the procedure for the AAT application. First, I'll choose the M1 form if the applicant is not in detention. Then, I want to combine family claims and check the current fee amount. I should confirm the latest ART fee, which I found as $3,580 from Hannan Tew as of September 2025, but I noticed previous sources had different amounts. I need to find the official ART website for the most accurate fee information.**Developing a comprehensive plan** I've got authoritative citation for regulation 485.213, which is a positive start. Now I need to create a detailed plan focusing on issues, legal grounds for merits review, required documents, and sample submissions. I'm considering error of law with the misinterpretation of the 'Australian Federal Police check' requirement and the procedural fairness aspect. Plus, the applicant's declaration of "No" on the application could pose a risk regarding providing false information. There’s a discrepancy that needs explaining—why did they declare "No" despite providing a police check? This could imply misleading information, so I must approach this carefully.**Addressing PIC 4020 and AFP checks** I need to think about the consequences of PIC 4020 if the Department suspects identity issues or false documents. Luckily, it seems minor here. I should recommend that the applicant applies for the AFP Complete Disclosure check right away and keeps the receipt since the application date should be within 12 months. However, applying now won’t satisfy regulations regarding applications made before the original date. If the case goes to the Tribunal, they can accept new evidence, which might allow for reconsideration if the criteria are met. It’s best for the applicant to obtain that check as soon as possible!**Advising on bridging visa and AAT application** I need to provide guidance on the bridging visa situation. Since the user is lodging a merits review within 28 days, their bridging visa is still valid. They can file the AAT application now without needing to submit Form 1005 immediately. If they prefer, they can file Form 1005 for a replacement bridging visa, especially if they can't use ImmiAccount. Given they already have a bridging visa from the previous application, it's unnecessary. I should confirm the right website for the AAT application, as it seems the ART may have replaced it in 2024. To be safe, I’ll recommend applying to the Tribunal via both online portals.**Citing decision records and regulations** I've got the decision record that includes the online and email addresses: online.art.gov.au and reviews@art.gov.au. We should make sure to cite the decision letter since it's user-provided, and the web results show these contacts are credible. I recall finding art.gov.au previously, but our recent search didn't turn that up. I’ll make sure to reference AAT/ART pages when possible. I need to identify the five key statements to cite. For example, Clause 485.213 requires an AFP check for evidence, and I’ll reference that legislation. Another important point is that the bridging visa stays valid during the merits review, ceasing 35 days post-decision, which I’ll support with citations from the relevant migration regulations. I should use reliable website references for these citations to substantiate the claims.**Researching police check requirements** It seems that the Home Affairs pages say they only accept the AFP 'Complete Disclosure' National Police Check for Immigration or Citizenship purposes in Australia. I should look up "AFP national police check complete disclosure" to gather more specific information and confirm these details. This will help ensure that I’m clear on what documentation is needed for the user’s immigration or citizenship application. Let's see what I can find!**Preparing the final response** I need to craft the final answer step-by-step and offer to help the user prepare any necessary documents. It would be helpful to include a clear timeline and a checklist so everything is organized. This way, the user feels supported and confident in the process. I will get started on this and make sure it’s thorough yet easy to follow! Let’s make sure everything is ready and on track together!Summary (short) - Issue: Department refused the Subclass 485 (Post‑Higher Education Work stream) application because it was not satisfied clause 485.213 (evidence applicant had applied for an Australian Federal Police (AFP) check within the 12 months before lodgement) was met. The delegate considered the document supplied (a “Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check” / state‑format certificate) was not the AFP “Complete Disclosure / Immigration & Citizenship” product the Department requires. The decision record therefore refused the visa without proceeding further. ([legislation.gov.au](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/2024-07-19/2024-07-19/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_2/document_2.html)) - Immediate legal consequence: the client has a time‑limited right to merits review (the Tribunal) and, if a valid merits‑review application is made while the client remains in Australia, the client’s bridging visa will continue in effect during the review (otherwise it will cease 35 days after the decision). You must act quickly. ([austlii.community](https://austlii.community/foswiki/Archive/ACTLawHbk/ImmigrationRefugeesAndCitizenshipReviewOfDecisions?utm_source=openai)) What went wrong (issues) 1. Primary legal ground used by the delegate - Delegate found clause 485.213 not satisfied because “evidence that the applicant had applied for an AFP check during the 12 months immediately before” lodgement was not provided in the form the Department expected. The Regulation itself requires evidence that an “Australian Federal Police check” was applied for in the 12 months before lodgement. (Text of clause 485.213). ([legislation.gov.au](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/2024-07-19/2024-07-19/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_2/document_2.html)) 2. Evidence / form mismatch - The applicant supplied a Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check certificate (submission date 12 June 2025) but the decision records that no accompanying evidence of a Complete Disclosure / Immigration & Citizenship AFP check was present when the visa was lodged. The delegate treated the document as not meeting the Department’s required form. 3. Declarations inconsistency / risk of adverse findings - The applicant answered “No” to the question “Have you applied in the last 12 months to the AFP?” (according to the decision). If that is correct, it is a factual inconsistency that the Department may treat as an applicant error or as misleading information. This raises a risk the Department might treat the matter as failure to provide accurate information — potentially touching PIC 4020 if material false/misleading documents are alleged (unlikely here but must be handled carefully). See Dept guidance re providing accurate information. 4. Procedural risk - The delegate refused without proceeding to other criteria; there may be scope to argue the delegate misapplied the law (interpreting Regulation as requiring a specific AFP product rather than any AFP check receipt) or failed to consider/ask the applicant to clarify the apparent discrepancy before refusal (procedural fairness). Whether these arguments succeed depends on the facts and authorities. Legal & practical ways we can help (step‑by‑step) We should recommend a two‑track immediate plan: (A) start merits review (Tribunal) now; (B) fix the evidentiary problem immediately (obtain the correct AFP evidence and assemble a clear explanation) so you have a full record for the Tribunal. A. Urgent — lodge merits review (Tribunal) within the statutory time limit 1. Deadline - The refusal letter was sent by email on 29 October 2025 and is therefore taken to have been received at the end of that day. The applicant must make an application for merits review within the period stated in the decision letter (28 days for most onshore visa refusals). That gives a deadline of 26 November 2025 (i.e. 28 calendar days after 29 Oct 2025). Lodge as soon as possible — do not wait until the last day. ([austlii.community](https://austlii.community/foswiki/Archive/ACTLawHbk/ImmigrationRefugeesAndCitizenshipReviewOfDecisions?utm_source=openai)) 2. Where and how to lodge - Use the Tribunal online lodgement portal (the decision letter gave online.art.gov.au and reviews@art.gov.au as contacts). If the Tribunal now operates as the ART (Administrative Review Tribunal) or under a different portal, the online application system is the correct route — the Department and migration lawyers advise online lodgement is preferred. Pay the required fee or apply for fee reduction/hardship if appropriate. (If you are unsure about fee amounts we can check and arrange payment.) ([moyamigrationlaw.com.au](https://moyamigrationlaw.com.au/insights/navigating-the-administrative-review-tribunal-process-for-your-visa-immigration-decision-review/?utm_source=openai)) 3. Which form to use - For migration merits review where the applicant is not detained: use the M1 online migration application for review (the Tribunal’s migration review form / online portal). Include the Department decision letter and the decision record as documents (the Tribunal asks for these). ([classicmigration.com.au](https://classicmigration.com.au/visa-rejection-and-cancellation/?utm_source=openai)) 4. What we will prepare for the Tribunal application (immediately) - Cover letter + application form to the Tribunal. - Grounds of review (precise, focused) — see suggested grounds below. - Evidence bundle, including the Department refusal letter and decision record (already provided), all police‑check documents and receipts, ImmiAccount screenshots, written explanation / statutory declaration from client addressing: a) whether and when they applied for any police checks (dates, reference numbers, receipts), b) why they answered “No” to the online question if that is inconsistent, c) any confusion or procedural issue that caused the mismatch. - Request an early directions hearing if necessary. - Payment of Tribunal fee (or arrange fee reduction). B. Fix the substantive evidence problem (ASAP) 1. Obtain the correct AFP product now - Apply immediately for the AFP National Police Check “Complete Disclosure / Immigration & Citizenship — Australia name check only” (the specific AFP immigration product). Save and download the AFP application confirmation/receipt and then the final certificate when issued. Even though a new application will be dated after the visa application date (so it cannot retroactively alter the statutory requirement), having the AFP Complete Disclosure document ready is essential evidence for the Tribunal and for any remittal back to the Department. (Department policy often accepts Tribunal‑remitted fresh evidence.) If the applicant actually applied for the AFP product before 26 Oct 2025, obtain and produce the receipt showing that date. (The Tribunal can accept fresh evidence and remit matters back to the Department for reconsideration.) ([linkedin.com](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/did-you-submit-wrong-afp-check-heres-why-might-end-your-subclass-riusc?utm_source=openai)) 2. Collect contemporaneous proof of the original police‑check application - If the applicant did apply before lodgement (for example, the NCCH / state check or AFP application was made earlier), collect: • Original application submission acknowledgement(s) (screenshots, PDFs, reference numbers), • Payment receipts / bank card statements, • Emails from AFP or third‑party provider, • The certificate supplied (NCCH), • Any screenshots from ImmiAccount where the AFP receipt/reference was entered. - If the Department says the document supplied was not the AFP product, collate evidence to show either (a) that the document was an AFP product, or (b) that the Regulation requires only that the applicant applied for an “Australian Federal Police check” (and the Tribunal should not be rigid about the Department’s preferred product) — see possible legal argument below. ([legislation.gov.au](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/2024-07-19/2024-07-19/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_2/document_2.html)) C. Draft the Tribunal grounds and submissions (legal arguments to advance) We recommend the following primary and alternative grounds: 1. Primary ground (legal error / misapplication) - The delegate incorrectly applied the Regulation by treating Department policy/expected AFP product as a legal requirement distinct from the Regulation’s text. Regulation 485.213 requires evidence that the applicant “had applied for an Australian Federal Police check during the 12 months immediately before the day the application is made” — it does not in express terms prescribe the specific “Complete Disclosure / Immigration & Citizenship” form. If the evidence supplied shows an AFP application was made during the period, the Regulation is satisfied. (We will identify and cite relevant authorities to this point when we draft the grounds.) ([legislation.gov.au](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/2024-07-19/2024-07-19/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_2/document_2.html)) 2. Alternative ground (factual error / failure to consider evidence) - The delegate failed to properly consider or give weight to the NCCH document submitted (or otherwise failed to ask the applicant to explain the apparent inconsistency before refusal). There may be a denial of procedural fairness if no reasonable opportunity to correct or explain was given. We will ask the Tribunal to set aside the decision and either substitute a grant (if the Tribunal finds the Reg is satisfied) or remit the matter to the Department for reconsideration with directions to consider the AFP evidence and explanation. 3. Risk management (addressing the “No” answer) - Provide a statutory declaration explaining why the incorrect answer was given on the online form (for example: misunderstanding of the question, input error, language issue). Explain there was no intent to mislead and produce supporting evidence showing an AFP application was made (or evidence the NCCH was provided in good faith). This reduces risk of adverse PIC 4020 findings. D. Bridging visa — do we need to lodge one now? 1. Current status - According to the decision letter, a bridging visa was granted for the processing period. If you lodge a valid merits‑review application while in Australia, the bridging visa will remain in effect during the merits‑review proceedings. If no merits review is lodged, the bridging visa will cease 35 days after the decision and the person will become unlawful. ([legislation.gov.au](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/2024-07-19/2024-07-19/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_2/document_2.html)) 2. Practical steps - If we lodge the Tribunal application within the 28‑day period, a new bridging visa application is not strictly necessary because the current bridging visa should remain in effect while the review proceeds. HOWEVER: • If there is any doubt about the current bridging visa, or if the client wants different bridging visa conditions (work/travel), or if ImmiAccount prevents further bridgings linked to the refused application, use the Department web form or Form 1005 (Application for a Bridging visa) to apply / replace or vary a bridging visa. See the Department webform and Form 1005 instructions. ([immi.homeaffairs.gov.au](https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/form-listing/Pages/submit-your-bridging-a-b-c-visa.aspx?utm_source=openai)) E. If Tribunal outcome is unfavourable 1. If the Tribunal affirms the refusal - The bridging visa will cease 35 days after the Tribunal decision (if you do not have another bridging visa). We can advise on the possibility of judicial review to the Federal Court on questions of law (very strict time limits) or a ministerial intervention request — both are time‑sensitive and require early assessment. ([legislation.gov.au](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/2024-07-19/2024-07-19/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_2/document_2.html)) 2. If Tribunal sets aside and remits - The prepared the correct AFP evidence and explanation, the Department may grant the visa on reconsideration. Documents & evidence checklist we will prepare (immediately) - The Department refusal letter and decision record (already available). - ImmiAccount lodgement screenshot (application date 26 Oct 2025). - The NCCH certificate and any state police certificate the client supplied (date: 12 June 2025) and any explanation from the issuing body about what the certificate is. - Any AFP application confirmation(s), receipts, reference numbers (if the AFP product was applied for). - New AFP Complete Disclosure / Immigration & Citizenship application confirmation & certificate (apply now and obtain). - Statutory declaration from the client explaining: • whether they applied to AFP, • what they thought they uploaded / entered at lodgement, • why they answered “No” (if that occurred), • and that there was no intention to mislead. - Written grounds of review (short & focussed legal arguments). - Submissions on procedural fairness if applicable. Estimated timeline (practical) - Day 0–3: Instruct us & sign authority; we lodge Tribunal application immediately (online) and pay fee / seek fee reduction if necessary. We upload the refusal and decision record. - Day 1–7: Collect evidence — AFP application + receipts; statutory declaration; assemble bundle. - Weeks 2–6: Directions from Tribunal; possible directions hearing; Tribunal may invite further evidence or file a hearing date. - Months 1–6+: Tribunal considers matter — decisions timing vary widely. If remitted, Department reconsideration may take several weeks. Costs & representation - We can prepare and lodge the Tribunal application, draft grounds and statutory declarations, and represent the client in any directions hearing and at substantive hearing if held. - Fee for Tribunal application: the Tribunal application fee and client must pay the Tribunal fee (or we can request a reduction/refund if eligible). We will confirm the current fee and arrange payment. (We can assist with fee waiver/50% reduction applications if financial hardship is arguable.) ([moyamigrationlaw.com.au](https://moyamigrationlaw.com.au/insights/navigating-the-administrative-review-tribunal-process-for-your-visa-immigration-decision-review/?utm_source=openai)) Key risks you must be aware of - If the client truly did not apply for an AFP check in the required 12‑month window, the Department’s decision may be upheld. - If the client declared “No” on the application but did have an AFP application, a clear explanation and contemporaneous evidence will be essential to avoid accusations of misleading conduct. - Time limits: missing the 28‑day window risks irrevocably losing the merits‑review right; extensions are difficult to obtain (AAT/ART often have strict limits). Act now. ([austlii.community](https://austlii.community/foswiki/Archive/ACTLawHbk/ImmigrationRefugeesAndCitizenshipReviewOfDecisions?utm_source=openai)) Next steps I recommend now (what I can do for you immediately) 1. If you instruct us now we will: - Prepare and lodge the Tribunal review application (online) within 24–48 hours, with our initial grounds and all current evidence attached (refusal / decision record). - Apply for the AFP Complete Disclosure check immediately and obtain the confirmation/receipt. - Prepare the client statutory declaration addressing the police‑check history and the “No” answer and prepare the evidence bundle to upload to the Tribunal. - Draft concise grounds of review focused on (a) legal error in applying 485.213 as requiring a particular Department product and/or (b) failure to consider the applicant’s evidence / procedural fairness. 2. Please send us (or a secure client portal) the following immediately: - The full Department email/refusal (you already provided), - Any police‑check documents, AFC receipts, ImmiAccount screenshots, and the NCCH certificate, - Passport bio page and ImmiAccount ID screenshots, - Brief written note from the client explaining what happened at lodgement (why “No” was answered, who prepared the application etc.). Authoritative sources cited (where I relied on them above) - Migration Regulations 1994 — clause 485.213 (AFP application requirement for Subclass 485) and other Subclass 485 provisions. ([legislation.gov.au](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/2024-07-19/2024-07-19/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_2/document_2.html)) - Migration Regulations / Bridging visa provisions — bridging visa continues during merits review; bridging visa cessation 35 days after refusal/Tribunal decision if no review. ([legislation.gov.au](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/2024-07-19/2024-07-19/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_2/document_2.html)) - Tribunal (AAT/ART) review time limits and lodgement procedure (online portal preferred; strict 28‑day limit for many onshore refusals). ([austlii.community](https://austlii.community/foswiki/Archive/ACTLawHbk/ImmigrationRefugeesAndCitizenshipReviewOfDecisions?utm_source=openai)) - Department guidance on providing accurate information / PIC 4020 warnings (adverse consequences for false/misleading information). ([immi.homeaffairs.gov.au](https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/providing-accurate-information?utm_source=openai)) - Practical notes and case law discussion relating to what form of police check is acceptable and the difference between Department policy and the Regulation (examples / commentary). We will research and cite any directly relevant case law we intend to rely on in the Tribunal submissions. ([linkedin.com](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/did-you-submit-wrong-afp-check-heres-why-might-end-your-subclass-riusc?utm_source=openai)) Final / immediate action required from you - Tell me now whether you want us to lodge and represent in the Tribunal (we will need a signed authority). - Send the AFP/NCCH documents, ImmiAccount screenshots and any other receipts you have (uploads or email). - Authorise us to apply for the AFP “Immigration & Citizenship / Complete Disclosure” check on the client’s behalf (or provide details so the client can do it immediately) so we can have the correct certificate ready. If you’d like, I can: - Draft the Tribunal application, grounds and statutory declaration now, - Lodge online to secure the client’s bridging‑visa protection while the Tribunal matter proceeds, - Prepare the evidence bundle and represent the client at any directions hearing. Would you like me to start the Tribunal lodgement and prepare the evidence bundle now? If yes, please upload the AFP/NCCH documents and confirm you authorise representation.