Cartwright (Migration)

Case

[2018] AATA 3128

18 July 2018


Cartwright (Migration) [2018] AATA 3128 (18 July 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Stephen Cartwright
Mr Luke Oliver Cartwright

CASE NUMBER:  1809476

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/2960308

MEMBER:Wan Shum

DATE:18 July 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for Skilled - Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 189 visa:

·cl.189.232 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 18 July 2018 at 4:36pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Skilled Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) – Subclass 189 (Skilled – Independent) – Skills assessment – Copy of the notice of assessment provided – Decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 cl 189.232

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 Home Affairs on 29 March 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Skilled - Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) (Subclass 189) (Skilled – Independent) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). This visa is designed for skilled applicants who have submitted an expression of interest and received an invitation to apply for the visa.

  2. The first named applicant (the applicant) applied for the visa on 17 August 2017.

  3. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 189 visa are set out in Part 189 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria. In the present case, the delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not satisfy cl.189.232 because the applicant had not provided a copy of his Notice of Tax Assessment for 2015.

  4. When making the application for review, the applicant provided a copy of his Notice of Tax Assessment for 2015. For that reason, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

  5. It is a requirement for the grant of the Skilled-Independent (New Zealand) (Subclass 189), visa that an applicant provide copies of their notices of assessment, and of any notices of amended assessments, given to the applicant by the Commissioner of Taxation, of the applicant’s income tax liability in relation to the 4 most recently completed income years before the date of the application (during the period of 5 years immediately before that date).

  6. As noted above, the applicant applied or the visa on 17 August 2017. The applicant had provided with his application notice of assessments for the 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017 income years. He did not provide a copy of the 2015 notice of assessment. The applicant was given an opportunity to provide a copy of the notice but provided a copy of the tax return instead.

  7. The applicant has provided a copy of his 2015 notice of assessment to the Tribunal. The applicant has now provided copies of all of his notice of assessments for the income years from 2013 to 2017. The Tribunal finds that the applicant satisfies cl.189.232.

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

    DECISION

  9. The Tribunal remits the applications for Skilled - Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 189 visa:

    · cl.189.232 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Wan Shum
    Member


Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Remedies

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0