1417777 (Migration)

[2015] AATA 3069

1417777 (Migration) [2015] AATA 3069 (10 July 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mrs NAVDEEP KAUR

CASE NUMBER:  1417777

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2014/1735520

MEMBER:Glen Cranwell

DATE:10 July 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 457 visa:

·cl.457.324 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 10 July 2015 at 9:44am

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 Immigration on 9 October 2014 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 15 July 2014. At the time the application was lodged, Class UC contained Subclass 457. The criteria for a Subclass 457 visa are set out in Part 457 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that cl.457.324 was not met.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent.

5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. The issue in this case is whether the applicant satisfies cl.457.324 which states as follows:

   Clause 457.324

   (1) The applicant is included in any nomination that is required in respect of the primary applicant.

   (2) If the applicant is not included in any nomination that is required in respect of the primary applicant:

   (a)      the standard business sponsor who has the most recent approved nomination under section 140GB of the Act, or under regulation 1.20H as in force immediately prior to 14 September 2009, of an occupation in relation to the primary applicant has agreed in writing that the applicant may be a secondary sponsored person in relation to the standard business sponsor; or

7. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not included in any nomination that is required in respect of the primary applicant. Therefore, cl.457.324(2) applies to her. The standard business sponsor who has the most recent approved nomination in relation to the primary applicant is Portovino Group Pty Ltd. The primary applicant’s sponsor has provided a letter, dated 1 June 2015, that the applicant may be secondary sponsored person and its sponsorship obligations cover the applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied, based on this evidence, that the sponsor has agreed in writing that the applicant maybe a secondary sponsored person in relation to the standard business sponsor. Therefore, the applicant meets cl.457.324(2) and satisfies cl.457.324 as a whole.

8. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 457 visa.

   DECISION

9. The Tribunal remits the application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 457 visa:

   ·cl.457.324 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

   Glen Cranwell
   Member