1600417 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 3643

1600417 (Migration) [2016] AATA 3643 (4 April 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr SAMEERA SALIYA SENARATHNA THENANDHALU MUDIYANSELAGE

CASE NUMBER:  1600417

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2014/2376340

MEMBER:Miriam Holmes

DATE:4 April 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

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

Statement made on 04 April 2016 at 2:21pm

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 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 19 September 2014.

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 visa on 5 May 2015 on the basis that cl.457.223(4)(a) was not met because the applicant was not identified in an approved nomination made by a standard business sponsor.

5. On 26 May 2015 the applicant made an application for review to the Tribunal seeking review of the delegate’s decision to refuse the visa application. On 1 July 2015 the Tribunal (differently constituted) determined that it had no jurisdiction to consider the application for review. On 11 January 2016 the Federal Circuit Court made orders by consent to quash the Tribunal decision dated 1 July 2015 and that a writ of mandamus issue directing the Tribunal to reconsider and determine the application for review made on 26 May 2015.

6. The Tribunal has reviewed the materials lodged by the applicant in relation to the review application and determined that no hearing was required.

7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a).

   Requirement for an approved nomination

10. Clause 457.223(4)(a) requires that there is an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased.

11. The Tribunal made the following findings based on the information provided by the applicant:

    ·On 19 September 2014 the applicant lodged an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.

    ·On 13 February 2015 the sponsor (FG Party Play Centre Pty Ltd) lodged an application seeking approval of a nomination for the occupation of Café or Restaurant Manager.

    ·On 5 May 2015 a department delegate refused the visa application on the basis that the applicant was not identified in an approved nomination made by a standard business sponsor.

    ·On 15 May 2015 a Department delegate refused the application by the sponsor for approval of the nominated occupation.

    ·On 26 May 2015 the sponsor lodged an application for review with the Tribunal seeking review of the delegate’s decision to refuse the application by the sponsor for approval of the nominated occupation.

    ·In March 2016 the sponsor was approved as a standard business sponsor from 21 March 2016 until 21 March 2021.

    ·On 24 March 2016 a differently constituted considered the review application by the sponsor and the Tribunal set aside the decision by the delegate and substituted a decision that the application in respect of the nominated occupation by the sponsor is approved.

12. Therefore the Tribunal finds that a nomination of an occupation in relation to the applicant has been approved under s140GB of the Act and the nomination was made by a person who was a standard business sponsor at the time the nomination was approved and the approval of the nomination has not ceased as provided for in regulation 2.75. For these reasons the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) are met.

13. 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

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

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

    Miriam Holmes
    Senior 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

    (ea)if:

    (i)    the applicant would be required to hold a licence, registration or membership that is mandatory to perform the occupation nominated in relation to the applicant; and

    (ii) in order to obtain the licence, registration or membership, the applicant would need to demonstrate that the applicant has undertaken a language test specified by the Minister under subparagraph 457.223(4)(eb)(iv) of Schedule 2 and achieved a score that is better than the score specified by the Minister under subparagraph 457.223(4)(eb)(v) of Schedule 2;

    the applicant has proficiency in English of at least the standard required for the grant (however described) of the licence, registration or membership; and

    (eb)if:

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

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

    (iii)    at least 1 of subparagraphs (ea) (i) and (ii) does not apply;

    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.