Dangol (Migration)

[2021] AATA 3262

Dangol (Migration) [2021] AATA 3262 (17 August 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Roshan Dangol
Mrs Sakrita Strestha

CASE NUMBER:  1900373

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/190808

MEMBER:Karen McNamara

DATE:17 August 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

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

Statement made on 17 August 2021 at 11:56am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 457 (Temporary work (Skilled)) – position of Accountant (General) – nomination approved upon review – decision under review remitted  

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 457.223

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 Home Affairs to refuse to grant the visa applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The visa applicants applied for the visas on 12 January 2018.

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 (Cth) (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 visas on 2 January 2019 on the basis that cl 457.223(4)(a) was not met because the first named applicant Mr Roshan Dangol (the applicant) was not the subject of an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor. The application made by the applicant’s prospective sponsor for nomination approval, had been refused by the Department.

5. The applicants applied to the Tribunal on 7 January 2019, for review of the delegate’s decision.

6. On 10 August 2021, the applicants represented by Mr Roshan Dangol appeared before the Tribunal via telephone, to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Ms Angela Yee (the nominator) in the related matter for the nomination review application (AAT Case file 1826670). The related matters were heard concurrently in a combined hearing.

7. 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 applicants. 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 applicants were given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

8. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

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

    Requirement for an approved nomination

11. 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.

12. The nominating employer, Supporting Independent Living Cooperative Ltd applied to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection for approval of a nomination in relation to the position of Accountant (General) (ANZSCO 221111). That nomination was refused by the Department on 29 August 2018 and consequently the applicants visa applications were refused.

13. Supporting Independent Living Cooperative Ltd applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision not to approve the nomination (AAT Case No.1826670). On 17 August 2021, the Tribunal set aside the Department’s decision and substituted a new decision to approve the nomination. Therefore, the applicant satisfies clause 457.223(4)(a) of Schedule 2 to the regulations.

14. The second named applicant (Mrs Sakrita Strestha), applied on the basis of being a member of the family unit of the first named applicant (Mr Roshan Dangol). The application by Mrs Sakrita Strestha will be determined by reference to the outcome of Mr Roshan Dangol’s application on remittal to the Department for consideration.

15. 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

16. The Tribunal remits the applications for Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 457 visa:

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

    Karen McNamara
    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

    (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.