Angrej Singh (Migration) - [2020] AATA 6163

Angrej Singh (Migration) [2020] AATA 6163 (5 August 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Angrej Singh Angrej Singh
CASE NUMBER:  1725703
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/3125082
MEMBER:Kira Raif
DATE:5 August 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.

Statement made on 05 August 2020 at 12:14pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – Australian study requirement – qualification closely related to nominated occupation – qualification in leadership and management and occupation of chef – overlap between courses – leadership and management course more in-depth than hospitality course – tasks of occupation and ANZSCO description – qualification useful but requirement for close relationship applies to occupation as a whole – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15F; Schedule 2, cl 485.222
CASES
Constantino v MIBP [2013] FCA 1301
MIBP v Dhillon (2014) 227 FCR 525
Talha v MIBP [2015] FCAFC 115
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
Application for review

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 18 October 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant is a national of India, born in August 1993. He applied for the visa on 29 August 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not satisfy cl.485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant’s qualifications used to meet the Australian study requirement were closely related to his nominated occupation. The applicant seeks review of the delegate’s decision.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 August 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Relevant law
Visa Class VC contains Subclass 485. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa are set out in Part 485 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The applicant is seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for a Subclass 485 visa in the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Angrej Singh (Migration)

Details

AGLC: Angrej Singh (Migration) [2020] AATA 6163
Case: [2020] AATA 6163
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the application of Angrej Singh for a Subclass 485 visa. The dispute concerned whether Mr Singh met the eligibility criteria for this visa subclass.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if Mr Singh satisfied the requirements for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa. This involved an assessment of the evidence presented against the relevant legislative criteria for that visa subclass.

The Tribunal, having made findings on the evidence, concluded that Mr Singh did not meet the criteria for the grant of the Subclass 485 visa. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

On the basis of the above findings, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa. As this is the only relevant subclass in this case, the decision under review will be affirmed.DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.Kira RaifSenior Member

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.