1513377 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 4352

1513377 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4352 (8 September 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Lakhvir Singh
Mrs Varinder Kaur

CASE NUMBER:  1513377

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/1127902

MEMBER:Glen Cranwell

DATE:8 September 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

·cl.457.223(4)(f) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 08 September 2016 at 2:37pm

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the visa applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The visa applicants applied for the visa on 15 April 2015.

3. At the time the visa 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). One of the criteria to be satisfied at the time of decision is cl.457.223 which requires the visa applicant to satisfy one of the alternative ‘streams’ for the visa. One of these streams is contained in cl.457.223(4) which is set out in the attachment to this decision. In the present case, specific claims have been made against cl.457.223(4) which applies to sponsorship for employment in an occupation by a standard business sponsor. No claims have been made in respect of the other alternative streams in cl.457.223.

4. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 24 September 2015 on the basis that cl.457.223(4)(a) was not met.

5. The first named applicant (the applicant) appeared before the Tribunal on 29 July 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.

6. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. As noted above, the visa application was refused on the basis that the requirements of cl.457.223(a) were not met.

9. The applicant provided evidence that a nomination application by JHRL Agriculture Pty Ltd was made on 13 July 2016. 

10. It had been the Tribunal’s intention to await the outcome of this nomination application before making a decision.  However, having waited almost 6 weeks, there is no indication that  the Department has yet made a decision.  The Tribunal now considers that the most appropriate course of action for it, in terms of being fair, just and quick, to be to remit the matter to the Department.  The Department can determine whether the nomination is approved and then can proceed to determine the visa application accordingly.

11. Clause 457.223(4)(f) requires that there is either no adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the approved nomination, or a person associated with that person, or it is reasonable to disregard any such information. ‘Adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ are defined in r.1.13A and r.1.13B of the Regulations.  There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate the presence of any relevant adverse information.  Therefore, cl.457.223(4)(f) is satisfied.

12. 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

13. The Tribunal remits the applications for Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 457 visa:

    ·cl.457.223(4)(f) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Glen Cranwell
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  -  CLAUSE 457.223 (EXTRACT)

    457.223

    …

    Standard business sponsorship

    …

    (4)The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:

    (a)each of the following applies:

    (i)    a nomination of an occupation in relation to the applicant has been approved under section 140GB of the Act;

    (ii)     the nomination was made by a person who was a standard business sponsor at the time the nomination was approved;

    (iii)    the approval of the nomination has not ceased as provided for in regulation 2.75; and

    (aa)the nominated occupation is specified in an instrument in writing for paragraph 2.72 (10) (a) or (aa) that is in effect; and

    (ba)either:

    (i)    the nominated occupation is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subparagraph; or

    (ii)     each of the following applies:

    (A)the applicant is employed to work in the nominated occupation;

    (B)if the person who made the approved nomination met paragraph 2.59(d) or (e), or paragraph 2.68(e) or (f), in the person’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor, the applicant is employed to work in a position in the person’s business or in a business of an associated entity of the person;

    (C)if the person who made the approved nomination met paragraph 2.59(h), or paragraph 2.68(i), in the person’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor, the applicant is employed to work in a position in the person’s business; and

    (d)the Minister is satisfied that:

    (i)    the applicant’s intention to perform the occupation is genuine; and

    (ii)     the position associated with the nominated occupation is genuine; and

    (da)the applicant has the skills, qualifications and employment background that the Minister considers necessary to perform the tasks of the nominated occupation; and

    (e)if the Minister requires the applicant to demonstrate that he or she has the skills that are necessary to perform the occupation — the applicant demonstrates that he or she has those skills in the manner specified by the Minister; and

    (eb)if:

    (i)    the applicant is not an exempt applicant; and

    (ii)     subclause (6) does not apply to the applicant;

    the applicant:

    (iv)   has undertaken a language test specified by the Minister in a legislative instrument for this subparagraph; and

    (v)    achieved within the period specified by the Minister in the instrument, in a single attempt at the test, the score specified by the Minister in the instrument; and

    (ec)if the Minister requires the applicant to demonstrate his or her English language proficiency — the applicant demonstrates his or her English language proficiency in the manner specified by the Minister; and

    (f)either:

    (i)    there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the approved nomination mentioned in paragraph (a) or a person associated with that person; or

    (ii)     it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the approved nomination mentioned in paragraph (a) or a person associated with that person.

    …

    (6)This subclause applies to an applicant if:

    (a)the base rate of pay for the applicant, under the terms and conditions of employment about which the Minister was last satisfied for paragraph 2.72(10)(c), is at least the level of salary worked out in the way specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this paragraph; and

    (b)the Minister considers that granting a Subclass 457 visa to the applicant would be in the interests of Australia.

    …

    (11)In subclause (4):

    exempt applicant means an applicant who is in a class of applicants specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subclause.