Flight crew reported ATC advised them of a possible low altitude alert even though they complied wit...

Narrative:

While at altitude south of gjt; aircraft X was cleared direct to cesba to maintain 12;000 ft. Cleared for the visual approach. I was pilot flying. We started the descent after cesba and shortly after were called by ATC notifying us of a possible low altitude alert. I immediately stopped my descent and started a climb. The captain responded to the ATC call and confirmed that we were cleared for the visual approach. The captain and I confirmed that we were past the fix and cleared for the visual approach so I again initiated the descent. Because we were now higher than I wanted to be for my location on the approach; I called for the gear down early to aid in the descent. Once turning on final; I configured the aircraft and was stable and on speed by 1;000 ft. The rest of the approach and landing was uneventful. Once on the ground I called ATC and cancelled our IFR flight plan with them.during the flight the captain had mentioned to me that there was a tendency for ATC to leave us high and dump us for a northwest approach into gjt. Because of our discussion and talking about contingencies; I believe that I was more prepared for the possibility of this happening. I feel that we had very good situational awareness; and it was evident that ATC was possibly a little slow in allowing us to descend. I do not believe that we descended below 12;000 ft. Before cesba. Because of the discussion during the flight about the tendency of being left at a high altitude; I feel that we had very good situational awareness. I am very appreciative of the captain for mentioning this and we had talked about contingencies including a go around if we were not stable and on speed and configured by 1;000 ft. There may have been confusion between ATC and us with being cleared for the visual approach versus the RNAV runway 29; but either way; we had not yet descended to 8;500 ft. Which would've been the lowest altitude from cesba to hansu on the RNAV runway 29 approach. In retrospect; maybe we could've made another call back to ATC to confirm our understood clearance.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Flight crew reported ATC advised them of a possible low altitude alert even though they complied with the assigned crossing restriction in their Visual Approach clearance.

Narrative: While at altitude south of GJT; Aircraft X was cleared direct to CESBA to maintain 12;000 ft. cleared for the Visual Approach. I was Pilot Flying. We started the descent after CESBA and shortly after were called by ATC notifying us of a possible low altitude alert. I immediately stopped my descent and started a climb. The Captain responded to the ATC call and confirmed that we were cleared for the Visual Approach. The Captain and I confirmed that we were past the fix and cleared for the Visual Approach so I again initiated the descent. Because we were now higher than I wanted to be for my location on the approach; I called for the gear down early to aid in the descent. Once turning on final; I configured the aircraft and was stable and on speed by 1;000 ft. The rest of the approach and landing was uneventful. Once on the ground I called ATC and cancelled our IFR flight plan with them.During the flight the Captain had mentioned to me that there was a tendency for ATC to leave us high and dump us for a northwest approach into GJT. Because of our discussion and talking about contingencies; I believe that I was more prepared for the possibility of this happening. I feel that we had very good situational awareness; and it was evident that ATC was possibly a little slow in allowing us to descend. I do not believe that we descended below 12;000 ft. before CESBA. Because of the discussion during the flight about the tendency of being left at a high altitude; I feel that we had very good situational awareness. I am very appreciative of the Captain for mentioning this and we had talked about contingencies including a go around if we were not stable and on speed and configured by 1;000 ft. There may have been confusion between ATC and us with being cleared for the Visual Approach versus the RNAV Runway 29; but either way; we had not yet descended to 8;500 ft. which would've been the lowest altitude from CESBA to HANSU on the RNAV Runway 29 Approach. In retrospect; maybe we could've made another call back to ATC to confirm our understood clearance.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	1742557
Time
Date	202004
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	D01.TRACON
State Reference	CO
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	First Officer Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Total 4703
Person 2
Function	Pilot Not Flying Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Flight crew reported ATC advised them of a possible low altitude alert even though they complied with the assigned crossing restriction in their visual approach clearance.