Cecilio Silva (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3069

Cecilio Silva (Migration) [2019] AATA 3069 (30 April 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Renato Cecilio Silva

CASE NUMBER:  1726401

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1041633, BCC2017/1091538

MEMBER:K. Chapman

DATE:30 April 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Distinguished Talent (Residence) (Class BX) Subclass 858 visa.

Statement made on 30 April 2019 at 10:31am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Distinguished Talent (Residence) (Class BX) visa – Subclass 858 – no internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement – Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu – competitor and coach – relatively low ranking with the IBJJF – obtained black belt 7 months before application – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359(2)
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 858.212(2)

CASES
Bretag v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1991] FCA 582
Gaffar v MIMIA [2000] FCA293
Zhang v MIMA and Anor [2007] FMCA 664

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 Immigration on 16 October 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Distinguished Talent (Residence) (Class BX) Subclass 858 visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’).

2. The Distinguished Talent Class BX visa is a permanent visa for persons who have an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in one of the following areas: a profession, a sport, the arts or academia and research, or have provided specialised assistance to the Australian Government in matters of security. In addition to having such an internationally recognised record, the person must be still prominent in the relevant area. They must also satisfy further requirements relating to being an asset to the Australian community, having no difficulty in obtaining employment or becoming established independently in Australia in the relevant area, and having an appropriate nomination for the visa.

3. The applicant, Mr Renato Cecilio Silva, applied for the visa on 14 March 2017 on the basis that he had an internationally recognised record of achievement in the area of sport, specifically Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ). The applicant is a national of Brazil and contends that his competition and coaching achievements, in conjunction with his reputation, in the sport of BJJ qualify him for the grant of the Subclass 858 visa. The applicant was nominated for the visa by Mr Vicente Cavalcanti, who is a competitor and coach in the sport of BJJ. Mr Cavalcanti also employs the applicant as a coach in his BJJ coaching business.

4. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not have an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in the sport of BJJ at the time of application. The delegate, inter alia, referred to the BJJ competition rankings of the applicant in making this decision. On 27 October 2017, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the visa refusal decision, providing a copy of that decision with his application for review.

5. On 30 October 2018, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to subsection 359(2) of the Act inviting him to provide current information addressing the relevant criteria under cl.858.212(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. In response the Tribunal received material including, but not limited to, written submissions, photographs, social media information, sponsorship particulars, competition results, ranking information, and a letter of support from Mr Jordan Wilson of Hyperfly (a sponsor of the applicant). On 6 February 2019, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal referring it to submitted material contained in the Departmental file. The Tribunal has duly considered all relevant material in this matter.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 February 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the nominator, Mr Vicente Cavalcanti. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent who was permitted to make oral submissions.

7. The applicant requested further time to provide post hearing submissions which was granted by the Tribunal. Following the grant of an extension of time for such submissions, the Tribunal received written submissions, a letter from the applicant, five third party letters of support for the applicant, ranking information from the International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation (IBJJF) and material concerning the status in BJJ of Mr Lucas Alves Lepri who wrote one of the aforementioned letters of support. All material submitted by the applicant has been duly considered by the Tribunal.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.858.212. In particular, the Tribunal must carefully assess whether at the time of the visa application he had an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in the sport of BJJ.

10. Sub-clause 858.212(1) provides that the applicant must satisfy the requirements of cl.858.212(2) or (4) at the time of the visa application. Sub-clause 858.212(4) requires that an applicant has provided specialised assistance to the Australian Government in matters of security. There is no claim made in this regard and that sub-clause is not relevant to this review.

11. Sub-clause 858.212(2) requires that, at the time of application for the visa, the applicant:

    (a)has an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in one of the following areas:

    (i)a profession;

    (ii)a sport;

    (iii)the arts;

    (iv)academia and research; and

    (b)is still prominent in the area; and

    (c)would be an asset to the Australian community; and

    (d)would have no difficulty in obtaining employment, or in becoming established independently, in Australia in the area; and

    (e)produces a completed approved form 1000; and

    (f)if the applicant has not turned 18, or is at least 55 years old, at the time of application – would be of exceptional benefit to the Australian community.

12. The applicant applied for the visa on the basis of his record and achievements as a BJJ competitor and coach. He was nominated, in a Form 1000 that accompanied his visa application, by Mr Vincente Cavalcanti (‘the nominator’). The applicant was over the age of 18 years and under the age of 55 years at the time of the visa application and therefore cl.858.212(f) is not relevant to the review. The Tribunal has carefully considered all relevant evidence, both documentary and oral, in assessing whether the applicant satisfies the requirements contained in cl.858.212(2).

    Exceptional and outstanding achievement in sport

13. As is relevant to the present matter, the applicant must have an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in the sport of BJJ. In determining whether the applicant has such an internationally recognised record, the criterion requires a demonstrated excellence in the relevant area which is ‘out of the ordinary’: see Gaffar v MIMIA [2000] FCA293 where the Court considered the phrase ‘exceptional record of achievement’ in an earlier category of skilled residence visa. The ordinary meaning of ‘record’ does not require that the record be quantifiable as large or lengthy or as having been sustained over a period of time. A record is an aggregation or a list, not necessarily a large aggregation or a long list: see Zhang v MIMA and Anor [2007] FMCA 664.

14. The applicant submitted a significant body of documentary evidence in support of his contention that he had an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in the sport of BJJ at the time of the visa application. This includes material that he submitted to the Department prior to the visa refusal decision. The applicant submitted further material in support of his claim that he has continued to maintain such a record following the time of the visa application. He contends that this evidence points to him having the required record at the time of application, relying upon the reasoning of the Court in Bretag v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1991] FCA 582. The applicant further contends that his case falls within the parameters of Departmental policy for the grant of the visa. The Tribunal has carefully considered all of the material submitted in support of the applicant’s contentions.

15. The applicant relies upon the submitted documentary evidence to support his contention that he has the necessary record of achievement by way of his competition results, coaching activities and reputation in the area of BJJ (including by way of receiving sponsorship, some with an international flavour). The nominator, Mr Cavalcanti, has written in support of the applicant, including by way of a joint letter with his wife, Mrs Sarah Cavalcanti. They contend that the applicant performs a valuable role for them in their BJJ coaching business ‘Southside BJJ’ and that he has a strong reputation in the sport, in addition to commendable competition results. The Tribunal affords some weight to the aforementioned written material. The Tribunal has also carefully considered the other documentary evidence in support of the applicant’s claims, including the references from third parties including Mr Daniel Lima Eulalio of the Queensland BJJ Circuit, Mr Lucas Alves Lepri (a multiple World Champion of BJJ, a claim accepted by the Tribunal), Mr Paul Slym of Southside BJJ and Mr Jordan Wilson of Hyperfly (a company sponsoring the applicant). The aforementioned referees submit that the applicant has the requisite record of achievement and the Tribunal places some weight upon their evidence.

16. The Tribunal also took oral evidence from the nominator, Mr Cavalcanti, which was in similar terms to his written evidence in support of the applicant. Mr Cavalcanti indicated that the applicant is very important in his business and in his view the applicant possesses an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in BJJ. The Tribunal affords some weight to the aforementioned evidence. Additionally, the Tribunal notes that various competition rankings, results and reputational material (including by way of links to the internet) were also submitted by the applicant and some weight is afforded to that evidence. For completeness, the Tribunal records that it has carefully considered all written material in both its own file and the Departmental files.

17. In oral evidence at the review hearing, the applicant outlined that he commenced participation in the sport of BJJ in 2004 at the age of 17 years whilst living in Brazil. In 2014 he obtained his Brown Belt in the sport. The applicant advised that he moved to Australia in 2014 to learn English and to train with the nominator, originally holding a Student visa. He obtained strong results in BJJ competitions as a Brown Belt, including a gold medal in the Pan Pacific Championships. The applicant obtained his Black Belt in the sport in August 2016, which is approximately 7 months prior to the time of application for the Subclass 858 visa. He obtained strong results in his first few competitions as an adult Black Belt competitor, including beating the nominator on one occasion. The applicant has been a BJJ coach throughout his time in Australia, becoming a full time coach upon acquiring unrestricted work rights at the time of application.   

18. The applicant explained to the Tribunal that the highest belt he can achieve at his age and experience level is the Black Belt. Typically, to progress to the higher belts certain time requirements must be satisfied. For example the Coral Belt may only be obtained after 30 years of achievement. The applicant outlined to the Tribunal that the progression of belts in the sport is White, Blue, Purple, Brown and Black (with further grades of Black Belt up to Coral). He confirmed to the Tribunal that competition at the Black Belt level is considered to be a higher level than that at the Brown Belt level. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant holds the highest belt possible for his age and experience. The Tribunal finds that it is a noteworthy achievement to possess a Black Belt in the sport of BJJ.

19. The applicant advised the Tribunal in his oral evidence that the sport of BJJ is growing worldwide. He told the Tribunal that within Australia, the Australian Federation of BJJ (the AFBJJ) regulates the sport and there are also State based bodies such as the Queensland BJJ Circuit (the QBJJC). Further, the applicant advised that the sport is regulated internationally by bodies such as the International BJJ Federation (the IBJJF) and the United Arab Emirates BJJ Federation (the UAEBJJF). He specifically confirmed to the Tribunal that the IBJJF is the most prestigious and important body with respect to the international regulation of the sport. The applicant also advised that the international governing bodies issue competition rankings and he indicated that the rankings issued by the IBJJF are the most important. He added that the UAEBJJF is more important in terms of money which can be earned by BJJ competitors, however the IBJJF issue the most important international rankings. The applicant outlined that rankings are now issued in both the Gi (uniform is worn) and no Gi (no uniform is worn) categories of the sport. He has competed in both categories.

20. When asked by the Tribunal what his IBJJF ranking was at the time of application (14 March 2017), the applicant was unsure. He agreed with the delegate’s finding in the visa refusal decision that as at 23 August 2017 he was ranked 373 in the world in the adult male Black Belt category of the IBJJF rankings (at that time there was only a general ranking, not specific Gi or no Gi rankings). He opined that his rank was likely to have been ‘a bit higher’ at the time of application as points reduce during the year without regular competition, however he was ‘not sure’ what his ranking was then. When asked by the Tribunal what his AFBJJ rank was at the time of application, the applicant agreed that in 2016 he was ranked 19 in the Male Black Adult Black Belt Gi category as recorded in the delegate’s visa refusal decision. He further agreed that his submitted list of AFBJJ rankings (at page 156 of the Departmental file) for that category contains correct information. That list reveals the highest ranked competitor holding 295.5 points, the second 211.5 points and the third 153 points. The applicant, at rank 19, held 30.5 points.

21. The applicant explained that he suffered an injury in 2017 (which is after the time of application) and his rankings fell for that reason. The applicant also indicated that he had only competed as a Black Belt for around 3-4 months at the time of application which hindered his ability to rank higher. Further, he submitted that due to living in Australia it is more difficult to obtain ranking points in BJJ competitions as fewer point scoring events are held, for example the Pan Pacific Championships and the Sydney International Open at that time, as opposed to living in the United States where more tournaments are conducted. The applicant indicated that if a competitor is not travelling out of Australia regularly to compete in tournaments then it is hard to maintain a high IBJJF ranking.

22. The applicant explained that he recovered from his injury around August 2017 and resumed competition in February 2018. He received medals during that year in competitions including the Sydney International Open, the Australian Nationals, the Queensland State Championships and the Oceania competition conducted in the UAE. The Tribunal notes that a list of the applicant’s Black Belt competition achievements, both prior to and following the time of application, may be found in written submissions on his behalf dated 26 February 2019. For completeness, the Tribunal also notes that the applicant’s competition results at the Brown Belt level prior to the time of application are recorded in the documentary evidence. The Tribunal has paid due regard to all of the applicant’s competition results.

23. According to the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant, at the Black Belt level prior to the time of application, he obtained second place in the Adult Black Belt Heavyweight division at the Asian IBJJF Championship held in Tokyo during September 2016, third place in the aforementioned division at the IBJJF Pan Pacific Games held in Melbourne in October 2016, and third place in both the Adult Black Belt Heavyweight and Adult Black Belt Open weight divisions at the 2016 Australian National Championships held in Melbourne in August 2016. As previously noted, the applicant also obtained medals in competition during 2018 and a list of those results is contained in the submissions dated 26 February 2019.

24. In oral evidence, the applicant advised the Tribunal that his IBJJF ranking was around 200 in the no Gi category and around 400 in the Gi category at the time of the review hearing. By letter dated 21 February 2019, the applicant informed the Tribunal that he does not have a record of his IBJJF ranking at the time of application, however he noted that his general ranking was 373 in the world as at 23 August 2017 as reflected in the delegate’s visa refusal decision. He further advised that as at 19 February 2019, he was ranked by the IBJJF as 280 in the Adult male no Gi rankings and 421 in the Adult male Gi rankings. He noted that there are 4 other Australian based BJJ competitors in the no Gi category, and 7 others in the Gi category, ranked above him.

25. In oral evidence, the applicant outlined that he worked as a part time BJJ coach in Australia (among other casual employment) until he obtained unrestricted work rights at the time of application. Since then he has worked full time as a BJJ coach/trainer, primarily with the nominator (advising that he operates in a contractor capacity). The applicant explained that he has a strong interest in coaching, adding that it is his main passion. He also indicated he will continue to compete in BJJ, including in professional contests for a fee. The applicant further outlined the background of the nominator, Mr Cavalcanti, advising that he is very notable in the sport of BJJ (which is accepted by the Tribunal).

26. The Tribunal raised with the applicant that his relatively low ranking with the IBJJF around the time of application, noting he advised that the IBJJF rankings are the most important, might tend to suggest that he did not have an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in BJJ at that time, inviting his comment. The applicant responded that it is hard to maintain a ranking if not travelling overseas often. He submitted that it is easier to maintain a higher ranking if residing in the United States where there are more tournaments. The applicant advised that only the Sydney Open and Pan Pacific Championships in Australia contribute to the IBJJF rankings, noting that the Melbourne Open is no longer offered.

27. The Tribunal raised with the applicant that a person not travelling regularly might not have the required internationally recognised record, inviting his comment. He replied that not everyone who competes travels. The applicant prefers to combining coaching with competition rather than focus on the latter alone. He cited his results in Japan and the Pan Pacific Championships as achievements he had combined with his coaching activities.

28. The Tribunal raised with the applicant that given he achieved a Black Belt in BJJ approximately 7 months before the time of application, and that many of his competition achievements before that time were at the Brown Belt level, the evidence might tend to suggest that he did not have an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in BJJ at that time, inviting his comment. The applicant responded that performing well in the Brown Belt level sets up a person for achievement at the Black Belt level. He agreed that Black Belt results were the most important. He submitted that results at the Brown Belt level are still internationally recognised because they are viewed with future attainment at the Black Belt level in mind.

1. The Tribunal raised with the applicant that he submitted to the Department with his visa application a list of AFBJJ Male Black Belt Adult Gi ranks for 2016, which show him as ranked number 19 in Australia with 30.5 points. It further indicates the person ranked number 1 in Australia on that list was a Mr Roberto Dib Frias with 295.5 points, the second ranked person in Australia on that list was a Mr Fabio Galeb with 211.5 points, and the third ranked person in Australia on that list was a Mr William Dias with 153 points. It was raised that given the applicant’s ranking and points then, based upon this information he provided, the evidence might tend to suggest that he did not have an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in BJJ at the time of application and he was invited to make comment. The applicant replied that his ranking in 2016 was assessed over the whole year in the Black Belt category and that those higher than him had the full year to obtain their ranking. He speculated that he would have been in the top 5 rankings if he had a full year as a Black Belt at that time. The applicant added that the higher competitors also had been active in competition at the Black Belt level and possessed previously earned points that would have diminished in value but still enabled them to place higher than him.

2. The Tribunal raised with the applicant that by not being active and competing for a longer time at the Black Belt level, acknowledging this level is higher than the Brown Belt level, this might tend to suggest that he did not have the required record of achievement, inviting his comment. He responded that he obtained good results at the Black Belt level once awarded that Belt. The Tribunal also raised with the applicant that, at the time of the review hearing, there was an absence of references from any persons holding office with the International Brazilian Jui-Jitsu Federation (IBJJF) or the Australian Federation of Brazilian Jui-Jitsu (AFBJJ) or the Queensland BJJ Circuit (QBJJC) attesting to him having an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in BJJ. The applicant requested more time following the hearing to obtain these and the Tribunal notes that the letter from Mr Daniel Lima Eulalio of the QBJJC (and ABJJF representative in Queensland) contends that the applicant possesses the requisite record of achievement. The Tribunal affords some weight to the aforementioned letter and also, as previously noted, to the other letters received post-hearing (and also to the other supporting letters submitted pre-hearing and to the Department).

   Analysis

3. That a person claims to satisfy the criteria for a visa does not of itself establish the veracity of such claims. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant: MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70.

4. The Tribunal has also very carefully considered the attribution of weight to the evidence before it in assessing whether the applicant satisfies the criteria for the visa. In doing so, the Tribunal is mindful of the observations of Collier J in Botha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 362 at [39]:

   There is ample authority at high level in this country that it is for a decision-maker to attribute such weight to relevant information as it sees fit: see for example Kirby J in Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at [24]; Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [197]; the plurality in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS (2010) 243 CLR 164 at [33].

5. The applicant’s background has been detailed above. In the view of the Tribunal, he has made notable achievements by obtaining a Black Belt in the sport of BJJ, through his competition results and also by his coaching endeavours. Further, the Tribunal notes that the applicant has a positive reputation within the BJJ community in Australia and in the view of his referees he possesses an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in the sport. Additionally, the applicant is in receipt of sponsorship regarding his BJJ activities (including some with an international flavour), some of which he has received prior to the time of application. The Tribunal places some weight upon the aforementioned material.

6. However, the Tribunal notes that the applicant himself in his initial spontaneous oral evidence at the review hearing characterised the International Brazilian Jui-Jitsu Federation (IBJJF) as the most prestigious and important body with respect to the international regulation of the sport. He also informed the Tribunal that the rankings issued by the IBJJF are the most important rankings. The best evidence before the Tribunal as to the applicant’s IBJJF adult Black Belt ranking at the time of the visa application (noting the ranking at that time was not divided into Gi and no Gi categories) is that from the IBJJF relied upon by the delegate as at 23 August 2017, indicating the ranking was in the vicinity of number 373. Indeed the applicant has not provided any persuasive evidence to suggest his ranking at the time of application was dramatically different to 373. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that at the time of the visa application, the applicant’s IBJJF adult Black Belt ranking was in the vicinity of 373.

7. As previously outlined, the applicant’s Australian Federation of Brazilian Jui-Jitsu (AFBJJ) ranking during 2016 was number 19. He held 30.5 ranking points at that time, compared to the highest ranked competitor holding 295.5 points, the second 211.5 points and the third 153 points. The Tribunal finds that the best evidence of the applicant’s ABJJF ranking at the time of the visa application is that submitted by him from the aforementioned body indicating it was 19 around that point in time.

8. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s ranking might have been higher in the IBJJF and AFBJJ standings had he held his Black Belt for a longer period of time, travelled overseas to compete in more BJJ competitions, resided in a country where more internationally recognised competitions were conducted and focused more on competing rather than coaching. However, the applicant did not do these things and he held the rankings outlined above. Further, the Tribunal notes that the applicant did not coach BJJ full time until after the time of application as, on his own evidence, he only obtained unrestricted work rights when he lodged the Subclass 858 visa application.

9. Following careful consideration, the Tribunal places very high weight upon the applicant’s IBJJF adult Black Belt ranking at the time of application. This is because the IBJFF rankings were acknowledged to be the most important international rankings by the applicant in his initial spontaneous oral evidence (noting the Black Belt rankings are more important than those at Brown Belt level). It is worth pausing to reflect that cl.858.212(2)(a) requires the applicant to demonstrate at the time of application that he had an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in the sport of BJJ. The Tribunal does not consider an IBJJF ranking in the vicinity of 373 to be ‘out of the ordinary’, nor commensurate with an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in the sport of BJJ. In the view of the Tribunal, the applicant’s AFBJJ ranking of 19 around the time of application buttresses the aforementioned conclusion and high weight is afforded to the evidence of that ranking. The Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s part time coaching achievements, or receipt of sponsorship, at the time of application to displace the aforementioned conclusions. Accordingly, the Tribunal places higher weight upon the IBJJF and AFBJJ rankings around the time of application than on the evidence submitted by the applicant contending he had the required record of achievement at that time.

10. The applicant also contends that his achievements following the time of application point to him having the required record of achievement at the time of application (citing the Bretag decision). The Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s most recent IBJJF Black Belt rankings (as at 19 February 2019) of 280 in the Adult male no Gi category and 421 in the Adult male Gi category to be ‘out of the ordinary’, nor are they commensurate with an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in the sport of BJJ. The Tribunal places higher weight upon the evidence of the aforementioned rankings than to the other evidence submitted by the applicant contending he possesses the required record of achievement. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that the evidence following the time of application is suggestive of the applicant having the required record of achievement at the earlier point in time.

11. The Tribunal has very carefully considered the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and the evidence before it. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has some notable achievements in the sport of BJJ. However for the reasons expressed above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant had an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in the sport of BJJ at the time of the visa application. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy cl.858.212(2)(a). For completeness, the Tribunal also finds that the applicant does not have an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in the sport of BJJ at the time of this decision.

12. For the reasons outlined, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements for the grant of a Subclass 858 visa.

    DECISION

13. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Distinguished Talent (Residence) (Class BX) Subclass 858 visa.

    K. Chapman
    Member