BLYTH (Migration) - [2020] AATA 4001

BLYTH (Migration) [2020] AATA 4001 (3 September 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Stuart Blyth
CASE NUMBER:  1806989
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1360408
MEMBER:Alison Mercer
DATE:3 September 2020
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); and
·cl.457.223(4)(da) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 03 September 2020 at 4:27pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) – standard business sponsor – subject of an approved nomination – 457 visa program closed – saving provision – Marketing Specialist – necessary skills, qualifications and experience – no Bachelor degree or higher qualification – at least 5 years of relevant experience – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Skill Shortage Visa and Complementary Reforms ) Regulations 2018
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.75; Schedule 2, cl 457.223; Schedule 13, cl 6704
CASES
Mangat v MHA [2019] FCCA 2227
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

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).
The visa applicant applied for the visa on 12 April 2017.
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.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on 28 February 2018 on the basis that cl.457.223(4)(da) was not met because the applicant had not demonstrated that he had skills, qualifications and employment background that the Minister considered necessary to perform the tasks of the nominated occupation of Marketing Specialist. The delegate noted that the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) online dictionary required a Bachelor degree or higher qualification, or at least 5 years of relevant experience, for the occupation of Marketing Specialist (ANZSCO code 225113). The delegate found that the applicant had completed secondary education and vocational qualifications in motor vehicle maintenance in the UK, but was not satisfied that these were at the level of a Bachelor degree or higher qualification. Further, the delegate was not…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read BLYTH (Migration) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] AATA 4001
Decision Date: 3 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against a decision regarding a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The applicant sought to rely on a nomination by Green Home Green Planet Pty Ltd (GHGP), a standard business sponsor, for the occupation of Marketing Specialist. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the necessary skills, qualifications, and experience requirements for the nominated occupation, particularly in light of the closure of the Subclass 457 visa program and the application of transitional provisions.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the requirements of clauses 457.223(4)(a) and 457.223(4)(da) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. Clause 457.223(4)(a) pertains to the validity of the nomination by a standard business sponsor, while clause 457.223(4)(da) requires the applicant to possess the skills, qualifications, and employment background considered necessary for the nominated occupation. A key aspect of this was assessing whether the applicant's extensive relevant experience could substitute for a formal Bachelor degree qualification, as permitted by the ANZSCO guidelines for Marketing Specialists.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's nomination was valid, particularly due to the transitional provisions under clause 6704 of Schedule 13 to the Regulations, which preserved the validity of nominations made before 18 March 2018, even during AAT review. Regarding the skills and experience requirement, the Tribunal found that the applicant had now accrued sufficient relevant experience, exceeding the five years stipulated by ANZSCO, and had provided updated documentary evidence to support this. This included recent employment in a Marketing Officer role and prior experience in marketing positions, including as a Sales and Marketing Manager, alongside a Diploma in Marketing.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the criteria under clauses 457.223(4)(a) and 457.223(4)(da). The matter was therefore remitted to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining criteria for the Subclass 457 visa.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Tribunal therefore finds that the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) are met. Skills, qualification and employment background of the applicant Clause 457.223(4)(da) requires the applicant to have the skills, qualifications and employment background necessary to perform the tasks of the nominated occupation. In addition, under cl.457.223(4)(e), if required by the Minister, the applicant must demonstrate that he or she has the skills that are necessary to perform the occupation in the manner specified by the Minister. The Tribunal notes that the delegate did not require the applicant to demonstrate his skills under cl.457.223(4)(e). In this case the nominated occupation is Marketing Specialist (ANZSCO code 225113). The ANZSCO occupational description for this occupation (ANZSCO being the standard reference used by the Department) provides the following guidance (Tribunal’s emphasis in bold font):Most occupations in this unit group have a level of skill commensurate with a bachelor degree or higher qualification. At least five years of relevant experience may substitute for the formal qualification. In some instances relevant experience and/or on-the-job training may be required in addition to the formal qualification (ANZSCO Skill Level 1). It was not disputed by the applicant that he does not hold a Bachelor degree or higher qualification. He relies instead on having at least 5 years of relevant experience to substitute for a formal qualification at Bachelor degree level or higher. At the time of the primary decision on 28 February 2018, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had established that he had at least 5 years of relevant experience in his field. The Tribunal concurs with the applicant’s agent that cl.457.223(4)(da) is to be assessed at the time of decision, which in this case means at the time of the Tribunal’s decision (as the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker). As further submitted by the applicant’s agent, the applicant has now accrued additional time in his nominated role of Marketing Specialist with GHGP, in addition to the employment experience he claimed at the time of the delegate’s consideration. Moreover, the applicant has also provided additional documentary evidence of his employment with each of his employers, which includes reference letters, payslips and PAYG summary statements issued to the applicant by the employers. Having reviewed the material provided, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has had the following work experience relevant to his nominated occupation of Marketing Specialist:·Marketing Officer with GHGP from March 2016 to date (September 2020) – 4 years and 6 months approximately; and·Marketing Officer with Reach Services Group Marketing from February 2016 to October 2016 (approximately 9 months). Together, this exceeds the 5 years of relevant experience referred to in ANZSCO. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant has additional prior experience in Marketing roles, comprising approximately 3 years and 7 months between 2002 and 2010. He also has a Diploma in Marketing, issued 1 May 2017 from Della International College Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Given this, the Tribunal is satisfied that the last 5 years of relevant experience claimed by the applicant were at a suitably high level to be considered relevant to the nominated occupation, as they were undertaken after the applicant had obtained a Marketing qualification (albeit not a Bachelor degree) and had undertaken marketing roles for several previous employers, 1 of which was as a Sales and Marketing Manager.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE The issue in the present case is whether the primary visa applicant meets the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) and (da).Requirement for an approved nomination Clause 457.223(4)(a) requires that there is an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor (SBS) that has not ceased. In this case, the applicant has been nominated by his employer, Green Home Green Planet Pty Ltd (GHGP). The Tribunal is satisfied from the material provided by the applicant and his agent, corroborated by the Department’s records, that GHGP was approved as an SBS on 21 February 2016, and that this approval is valid until 21 February 2021. The Tribunal is further satisfied that GHGP’s nomination of the applicant for the nominated position was lodged on 12 April 2017 and approved by the Department on 27 July 2017. As noted in the Department’s s.359(2) letter of 6 August 2020, this nomination approval normally would have ceased after 12 months (that is, 27 July 2018), assuming no earlier, specified event occurred: r.2.75 of the Regulations (as it was at the time of the nomination approval). However, as noted by the applicant’s agent, major legislative amendments were made to the subclass 457 visa program and associated nominations on 18 March 2018, which effectively closed the subclass 457 visa program from that date (with some specified exceptions, including undecided subclass 457 visas pending at that date, which includes the applicant’s visa application). Transitional provisions in relation to the impact of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Skill Shortage Visa and Complementary Reforms ) Regulations 2018 are set out in Schedule 13 to the Regulations. Relevantly, they provide:6704 - Application and transitional provisions in relation to amendments of Part 2A…(14) Despite the amendments of regulation 2.75 made by the amending regulations, that regulation, as in force immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1 to the amending regulations, continues to apply in relation to a nomination made before the commencement day.(15) However, paragraph 2.75(2)(b) does not apply in relation to a nomination made before the commencement day [18 March 2018] if:(a) before the commencement day, the person identified in the nomination applied for a Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa on the basis of the nomination; and(b) within 12 months after the day on which the nomination is approved, the person applies to the Tribunal for review of a decision to refuse to grant the visa. The Explanatory Statement accompanying the Amending Regulations states that:Clause 6704, entitled Application and transitional provisions in relation to amendments of Part 2A, has the effect that changes to regulations relating to sponsorship and nomination under Part 2A of the Migration Regulations do not affect applications and nominations made before 18 March 2018. There are 2 exceptions:- ..- Subclass 6704 (15) ensures that a nomination linked to a Subclass 457 visa application will not cease during AAT review of a decision to refuse the visa. This is a beneficial change to extend the validity of the nomination, which would otherwise cease 12 months after approval (paragraph 2.75(2)(b) of the Regulations) to avoid situations where the applicant is successful at the AAT but the related nomination has ceased to be in effect noting that it is not possible to mkae (sic) another Subclass 457 nomination as of 18 March 2018.

Decision

Reasons for decision

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 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); and·cl.457.223(4)(da) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.Alison MercerMemberATTACHMENT - 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.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.