Fitzpatrick (Migration)

Fitzpatrick (Migration) [2022] AATA 2705 (10 February 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Keith Joseph Fitzpatrick
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mrs Rachel Praxl (MARN: 0959855)
CASE NUMBER:  2013145
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/5731110
MEMBER:L. Hawas
DATE: 10 February 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 482 - Temporary Skill Shortage visa.

Statement made on 10 February 2022 at 11:43 am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa – Subclass 482 - Temporary Skill Shortage – member of the family unit – relationship ceased – separation from new relationship and family – high demand skilled employment – employer sponsoring the applicant – impact on new employer – Western Australian border closures – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 48, 116, 140
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 4, Public Interest Criteria 4013, 4014; rr 1.12, 2.12
CASES
MIMA v Zhang (1999) 84 FCR 258

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction

The applicant is a 33-year-old man from Ireland. The applicant first came to Australia in 2012 on a visitor visa to attend his sister’s wedding. In January 2018, he returned to Australia with his then wife, Joy Reade, on a subclass 417 working holiday visa. While in Australia on that visa, Reade applied for and obtained a Subclass 482 - Temporary Skill Shortage visa, which was granted on 19 February 2019, for a period of three years to 19 February 2021. Consequent upon the visa grant to Reade, the applicant was granted a secondary 482 visa on the grounds that, as Reade’s spouse, he was a member of Reade’s family unit within the meaning of r. 1.12(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Regulations).
Under s. 116(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Act), the Minister (or a delegate) may cancel a visa if the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on a particular fact or circumstance that is no longer the case or no longer exists. The applicant’s marriage to Reade ended in about September 2019. By written decision dated 20 August 2020, a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs cancelled the applicant’s visa under s. 116(1)(a). The delegate found that the applicant’s visa was granted based on him being married to Reade and being a member of her family unit. The delegate found that by reason of the applicant’s relationship with Reade ending and him no longer being a member of her family unit, grounds for cancelling the applicant’s visa under s. 116(1)(a) had been enlivened. After considering the proper exercise of the discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa, the delegate found that the circumstances before the delegate favoured cancelling the applicant’s visa and the delegate decided to cancel.
The applicant has now applied to this Tribunal for a review of that decision. The applicant gave the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision at the time he applied for this review.
Accordingly, in this review, the Tribunal must decide whether the ground for cancelling the applicant’s visa is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be set aside.

Procedural matters

The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 June 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. At the hearing, the Tribunal also heard oral evidence from Thomas Lilley, the applicant’s employer at the time of the hearing. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by video conference (Microsoft Teams). The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by video conference, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant.
The applicant was represented in this review by a registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
Before the hearing, the applicant’s representative sent the Tribunal written submissions with a bundle of supporting documents. After the hearing, the applicant sent the Tribunal various other documents over time supporting his claim. The Tribunal has considered all those documents in this review.

Is the ground to cancel the applicant’s visa made out?

As has been stated above, under s 116(1)(a) of the Act, the Minister (or the Tribunal on review) may cancel a visa if satisfied that the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on a particular fact or circumstance that is no longer the case or no longer exists. In MIMA v Zhang (1999) 84 FCR 258, the Full Federal Court considered the proper construction an earlier version s.116(1)(a), which contained slightly different wording. The Court held that s.116(1)(a) is concerned with a material change in the circumstances (per Merkel J at [74]). The relevant circumstance is the subject of the ministerial reflection and does not extend to the Minister’s own state of mind (per French and North JJ at [54]). Those principles also apply to the current s. 116(1)(a), which is relevant to this review.
Regulation 1.12(2)(a) of the Regulations provides that a person is a member of another’s family unit within the meaning of s. 5(1) of the Act if the person is the other’s spouse or de-facto partner. Section 5F(1) of the Act provides that a person is the spouse of another if, under subsection 2, both are in a married relationship. Section 5F(2) provides that the two people will be in a married relationship if they are married, have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship between them is genuine and continuing, and they live together (or do not live separately) on a permanent basis. All those characteristics of the relationship must exist for the definition of a spouse under s. 5F to be satisfied. At the time of the applicant’s visa grant, he was married to and was living with Reade. He was a member of Reade’s family unit. Accordingly, the applicant met the criteria set out in r. 1.12 of the Regulations for the grant of a secondary visa and he was granted his visa on that basis.
The evidence before the Tribunal[1] establish the following:
(a)The applicant married Reade in Ireland in August 2017. They do not have children;
(b)In January 2018, the applicant came to Australia with Reade on a sub-class 417 visa. On 14 February 2019, Reade, as the primary visa holder, was granted her 482 visa. The applicant was granted a secondary 482 visa because he was married to Reade;
(c)The applicant’s relationship with Reade encountered problems in June 2019 and they separated in September 2019. Their relationship ended at that time;
(d)At about the same time, the applicant agreed with Reade that she would contact the department and advise it that her relationship with the applicant had ended. Subsequently, Reade contacted the department and advised it the relationship had ended; and
(e)The applicant has now moved on and entered a new relationship with a woman who has two children from an earlier relationship. The applicant sees Reade, who is still in Australia, from time to time. They are civil to each other without being overly friendly.
[1] The applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing, the documents the applicant gave the Tribunal, and the applicant’s communication with the department as contained on the department’s file.
In the cancellation decision, the delegate stated that information before the department indicated that the applicant was no longer in a relationship with Reade, and for that reason, the delegate’s power to cancel the applicant’s visa under s. 116(1)(a) had been enlivened. The applicant did not cavil with that proposition at the hearing. He said that he accepted the delegate (and the Tribunal) had the power to cancel his visa but the proper exercise of the discretion to cancel necessitated a decision that his visa should not be cancelled.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it finds that the spousal relationship between the applicant and Reade has ended - it is not continuing. They no longer live together as a married couple and they are not in a de facto relationship of any kind. Accordingly, the applicant is no longer Reade’s spouse within the meaning of that term in s. 5F of the Act and he is no longer part of Reade’s family unit within the meaning of that term in r. 1.12(2)(a) of the Regulations. The applicant’s secondary visa was granted to him on the basis that, as Reade’s husband, he was part of her family unit at the time of the grant. That circumstance no longer exists. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancelling the applicant’s visa under s. 116(1)(a) of the Act has been enlivened.

Consideration of the discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa

Section 116(1)(a) of the Act does not require mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa. Having found that grounds for cancelling the visa under that section have been made out, the Tribunal must consider whether the visa should be cancelled. There are no matters specified in the Act or the Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. In exercising its discretion, the Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, matters in the ‘General visa cancellation powers’ departmental policy as well as all the other matters it considers relevant. Those are set out below.

The purpose of the applicant’s travel to and stay in Australia, and whether the applicant has a compelling need to remain in Australia

The evidence before the Tribunal in relation to this head is as follows:
(a)The purpose applicant’s original travel to Australia in January 2018 on his subclass 417 visa was to enjoy an extended holiday stay in Australia with Reade while working to fund the stay;
(b)That purpose changed in substance on 14 February 2019 when Reade was granted her 482 visa. Reade was granted that visa on the grounds that she would work for sponsoring employer (a hair dressing business). Fitzpatrick was granted a secondary 482 visa as her was married to Reade at the time and was part of her family unit;
(c)The applicant is a qualified spray painter and panel-beater. In late July 2020, being after the department sent the applicant a notice of intention to consider cancellation of his visa dated 16 June 2020 but before the delegate cancelled the applicant’s visa on 20 August 2020, the applicant commenced employment as a spray painter and panel beater with Thomas Vehicle Refinishing (TVR). That is a car panel and paint business in Perth, which specialises in accident repairs, custom car restorations, and motorbike refinishing. The applicant earned $1,054 per week after tax while working for TVR;
(d)TVR’s principal, Thomas Lilly appeared at the hearing. He stated that the applicant was a reliable employee who was highly valued because he was proficient in two separate trades – spray painting and panel beating. He was also proficient in completing mechanical repairs on cars. Australian employees who are qualified and proficient in those two separate trades (as well as mechanical repairs) are difficult to find. TVR proposes sponsoring the applicant for a 482 visa. At the time of the hearing, TVR was completing the labour market testing before applying. Given the applicant’s qualifications and value to TVR’s business, it would still apply to nominate the applicant for a 482 visa even if he was required to return to Ireland in the short term. Mr Lilly said that he had encountered difficulties locating appropriately qualified Australian employees and the applicant would be difficult to replace. Mr Lilly said he would try and source contract labour to cover for the applicant while his application was being processed if the applicant returned to Ireland to await the outcome of the sponsorship application;
(e)The applicant’s representative also submitted a lengthy letter from Mr Lilly and pay slips for the applicant from TVR with its pre-hearing submissions. The letter confirmed the matters Mr Lilly stated at the hearing. In the letter, Mr Lilly also stated that TVR had proposed to apply to sponsor the applicant for a 482 visa in July 2020 when it first employed him but after the delegate cancelled his visa TVR held the application back. As the applicant had now sought a review of the delegate’s decision, TVR had now determined to proceed with applying to nominate the applicant;
(f)After the hearing, the applicant notified the Tribunal that on 11 June 2021, Mr Lilly applied formally to nominate the applicant for a 482 visa. The applicant’s representative sent the Tribunal an acknowledgment of nomination application received from the Department of Home Affairs dated 11 June 2021 making out that matter;
(g)Mr Lilly withdrew his application to nominate the applicant for a 482 visa on 31 December 2021;
(h)Subsequently, the applicant notified the Tribunal that on 21 January 2022 another company that operates a car spray painting and panel beating business in Perth, The Don of Paint Pty Ltd (The Don of Paint), had applied to nominate the applicant for a 482 visa. The applicant sent the Tribunal the acknowledgment of nomination application received from the Department of Home Affairs dated 21 January 2022 evidencing that application;
(i)The applicant also sent the Tribunal a signed employment contract between the applicant and with The Don of Paint dated 18 January 2022 as well as an undated letter from the principal of the company. The employment contract provides that The Don of Paint employs the applicant as a panel beater, that he is to work 38 hours a week (full time), and that his annual salary is $69,160. The letter provides:
Keith Fitzpatrick has been employed with us since 19/07/2021 and has been such value to our operations of business. We needed a panel beater at the time desperately but it has been hard to find any staff since the borders have been shut especially panel beaters/spray painters.
We’re still looking and require at least 2 more panel beaters to keep up with the high demand of our daily business requirements. Without Keith our business would shut down. Keith is an asset to our company with his skills and is a professional & polite employee who consistently works to a high standard.
(j)At the hearing, the applicant stated that he wants to remain in Australia to work in his chosen vocation as a spray painter and panel beater. He said he was also heavily involved in volunteer work with a mental health charity and a charity that assisted the homeless. He wants to remain in Australia to continue his charity work. He also wants to stay in Australia because he now considers Australia to be his home and there is nothing left for him in Ireland.
Turning to the Tribunal’s findings under this head, a 482 visa is a temporary visa that provides for skilled people (and their immediate families) to come to Australia to work for an approved employer for up to four years. The 482 scheme allows visa holders to fill roles where there is a genuine skills shortage or, in effect, where a suitably qualified Australian worker is not available.[2]
[2] >
Although the applicant was not originally granted his 482 to visa for the purpose of working for a sponsoring employer to fill a skills shortage the employer was enduring, the applicant’s stay in Australia took on that character when he commenced work for TVR and then The Don of Paint. Both of those employers have stated that they were (and are) enduring a skills shortage that the applicant could fill. The Don of Paint has stated that it has found it desperately difficult to locate appropriately qualified employees during the Western Australian border closures. Without the services of the applicant, the business could not operate such is the skills shortage it is enduring. The applicant now wanting to remain in Australia to work for The Don of Paint and fill its skills shortage while he awaits the outcome of its application to nominate him for a visa, and then to work for that company if he is granted a 482 visa, is consistent with a stay in Australia on the visa. The Tribunal weighs that factor against cancelling the applicant’s visa.
Further, the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to search diligently for employers to nominate him for a visa and an ability to secure applications to nominate him. He secured employment with TVR in July 2020, before his visa was cancelled, and secured an application by that business to nominate him for a 482 visa in June 2021, after his visa was cancelled. After TVR withdrew that application, the applicant secured another application by The Don of Paint to nominate him for a 482 visa. The applicant is currently working for The Don of Paint as a panel beater and the company requires the applicant to fill a skills shortage it is enduring while its nomination application is being processed. If the nomination application is approved and the applicant is granted a 482 visa, the applicant will continue working for The Don of Paint and can remain in Australia on his 482 visa for that purpose. The Tribunal also weighs those matters against cancelling the applicant’s visa.
The Tribunal notes the applicant’s wish to remain in Australia to pursue his charity work. Although that is commendable, charity work is not the purpose (or one of the purposes) of a 482 visa. The Tribunal considers that matter to be neutral in this review. During the hearing the applicant also stated, in substance, that he wanted to remain in Australia linger terms as this was his new home. Although the Tribunal accepts that temporary visas like 482 visas can sometimes ultimately facilitate permanent residency in Australia, remaining in Australia to explore residency options is not the purpose of a 482 visa. Ultimately, the Tribunal has weighed evidence of that nature in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa. However, it considers the extent to which the applicant’s proposed stay in Australia is consistent with his 482 visa – work for The Don of Paint to fill a skills shortage and await the outcome of its application to nominate him for a 482 visa – substantially outweighs the inconsistent characteristics of the applicant’s proposed stay such as wanting to live in the place he now considers to be home.

The extent of compliance with visa conditions

The Tribunal does not have evidence before it that the applicant has breached any of the conditions of his visa. The Tribunal weighs that against cancelling the applicant’s visa.

Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional, or other hardship)

At the hearing and in the written material the applicant submitted to the Tribunal, the applicant stated that if his visa were cancelled and he were required to return to Ireland without the benefit of having his nomination application decided first he would suffer the following instances of hardship:
(a)The applicant has struggled with depression/mental health problems from a young age. Since moving to Australia and commencing volunteer work with the mental health charity he has enjoyed a substantial improvement in his mental health. More generally, he has enjoyed his life in Australia, which has also improved his mental health. If he must return to Ireland, he fears that his mental health will deteriorate;
(b)There was nothing for the applicant in Ireland. Although his parents are in Ireland, he is estranged from his mother and has limited contact with his father. He considers his life now to be in Australia. The applicant’s sister is in Australia as is her family (husband and two sons);
(c)If the applicant were required to return to Ireland he would be separated from his new partner and her children. His new partner also suffers from mental health issues, and she relies on him to help her around the house and with the children. If he were separated from his partner they would both suffer from mental health problems;
(d)The applicant would also suffer financial hardship if he were required to return to Ireland. He would need to leave his current well paying job to face an uncertain employment future in Ireland; and
(e)The applicant submitted to the Tribunal a statutory declaration sworn by his sister in Australia. The applicant’s sister stated that the applicant helps her around the house and with her boys as her husband works shifts and is not always at home at convenient times to assist. The applicant’s sister stated that she struggled with her own mental health issues and the applicant has helped her cope, especially given his work with the mental health charity. The tenor of the statutory declaration was that if the applicant was required to return to Ireland the applicant’s sister and her family would suffer hardship generally because the applicant would be separated from them.

The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s hardship claims and has weighed them against cancelling the applicant’s visa but the weight is limited. The various claims of mental health problems were not supported by medical evidence. Although the applicant submitted to the Tribunal a letter from the founder of the mental health charity for whom the applicant volunteers attesting to the applicant’s involvement with the charity, it does not constitute medical evidence of the applicant’s mental health problems and their gravity. That is not to say that the Tribunal does not accept the truth of the claimed mental health problems. It is prepared to accept the claims at face value. But in the absence of medical evidence as to the nature of the problems, their gravity, and the treatment given or available it is difficult for the Tribunal to give the claims any substantial weight.
Ireland is a safe western democracy. Although the applicant might endure short term unemployment if he returns to Ireland, his qualifications are likely to see him gain employment relatively quickly and he is young enough to establish himself in Ireland if he must stay there. The Tribunal accepts that having to return to Ireland might entail some personal discomfort for the applicant and might be contrary to his preference. But the Tribunal places limited weight on those matters. The Tribunal does not consider the applicant having to return to a country like Ireland, on its own, to constitute any substantial hardship on the applicant. The Tribunal places limited weight on the evidence of the applicant’s sister. The applicant has only been in Australia since January 2018, and he was always here on a temporary visa that did not carry a representation of longer term stay.
The Tribunal has weighed against cancelling the applicant’s visa the hardship the applicant and his new partner will endure if the applicant must return to Ireland, and they are separated. But again, the weight is limited. The applicant’s 482 visa was always temporary and pursuing a new relationship is well removed from the purpose of that visa.
The applicant’s new employer and sponsor for a 482 visa, The Don of Paint, has stated that the Western Australian border closures, which are ongoing, has caused it to suffer a severe skills shortage. Without the applicant’s services, which The Don of Paint cannot easily replace in the current environment, it may need to close its business. The current automotive industry skills shortage in Australia (and Western Australia) is well documented.[3] The Tribunal considers that these matters constitute relevant hardship in this review, which The Don of Paint will suffer, if the applicant’s visa is cancelled and that results in the applicant being required to return to Ireland before its application to nominate the applicant for a 482 visa has been decided. The Tribunal weighs that against cancelling the applicant’s visa, more so than the applicant’s express hardship claims.

Circumstances in the which the ground for cancellation arose. Were the circumstances beyond the applicant’s control?

[3] See for example type="1">

At the hearing, the applicant stated that his marriage to Reade ended largely because of the mental health problems he had battled all his life. He said his personal problems led to self-destructive behaviour and he was not able to give Reade the support she needed. His mental health problems also led to a catalogue of other errors he made over time with which Reade could not cope. As stated above, the applicant said that his separation from Reade was largely event free and relatively amicable. They agreed to separate. They are still on speaking terms although they are not close friends. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant’s marriage to Reade was abusive in any way.

On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s marriage to Reade ended because, in the end, differences between them developed that could not be reconciled. Obviously, the applicant had some control over what occurred during his marriage to Reade, and in that sense he had some control over the circumstances in which his visa was cancelled. Also, the applicant and Reade mutually agreed to separate. Plainly, the applicant had some control over the decision to separate from Reade and end the marriage, which resulted in his visa being cancelled. In those circumstances, it is not possible for the Tribunal to find that the circumstances in which the applicant’s visa was cancelled were beyond his control and to weigh that against cancelling the applicant’s visa. But a couple separating because irreconcilable differences arose over time is a common enough occurrence and part of the ordinary incidence of life. The Tribunal considers this control consideration to have a neutral impact on this review.

Past and present behaviour towards the Department

There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has not cooperated with the Department. The Tribunal weighs that against cancelling the applicant’s visa.

Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s. 140

The cancellation of the applicant’s visa will not result in other visas being cancelled as a consequence. This consideration is not relevant to this review.

Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention

The applicant is currently in Australia on a bridging visa E (class WE subclass 050) pending the outcome of this review. The applicant was granted that visa on 24 August 2020, four days after his visa was cancelled.
Section 48 of the Act prescribes that a non-citizen who does not hold a substantive visa, and (relevantly) held a visa which was cancelled under s. 116 of the Act, may apply for certain prescribed classes of visas but not others in Australia. Regulation 2.12 of the Regulations prescribes the classes of visas. Subclass 482 visas are not prescribed. Consequently, this limits what visa applications the applicant can make whilst onshore, including for a 482 visa. The Tribunal has taken that potential limitation on the applicant’s future visa applications actions into account and weighed that against exercising its discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa.
The cancellation of the applicant’s visa will not attract the application of Public Interest Criteria 4013 (PIC 4013). The visa cancellation will not attract the risk factors set out in PIC 4013 necessary to invoke its application. The Tribunal considers that to have a neutral impact on this review.
The Tribunal has considered the potential impact of PIC 4014 on the applicant. That public interest criteria provides that a visa holder will be affected by a risk factor if the person left Australia as an unlawful non-citizen or the holder of certain bridging visas including a bridging visa E. The risk factor will not operate if the visa holder left Australia within 28 days after the substantive visa ceased to be in effect or a while on a bridging visa granted within 28 days after the substantive visa ceased to be in effect. If it applies, PIC 4014 will effectively bar the visa-holder from obtaining another visa unless the application is made more than three years after the person left Australia or there are compelling circumstances affecting Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian resident, justifying the grant of a visa within three years after departure. The applicant obtained his birding visa E well within 28 days of his visa being cancelled so he will not be impacted by PIC 4014.

Whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would or may be breached as a result of the visa cancellation

The Tribunal has considered Australia international obligations. They are not engaged in this review and are neutral.

Other relevant matters

As stated above, in this review the Tribunal has considered the interests of the applicant’s new employer and sponsor, The Don of Paint. That business is in desperate need of the applicant’s skills and experience and operates in a sector that is enduring skills shortages. The Tribunal has weighed The Don of Paint’s interests generally against cancelling the applicant’s visa.

Conclusion on discretion

The Tribunal has considered all the evidence before it carefully and all the matters in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa and all the matters that weigh against that outcome as set out above.
If the Tribunal cancels the applicant’s visa and that results in the applicant returning to Ireland to await the outcome of The Don of Paint’s application to nominate him for a 482 visa, the company will endure the effect of having one less skilled employee at its disposal while its nomination application is being considered. On the evidence, that may result in The Don of Paint closing its business as it will not be able to replace the applicant quickly in a tight automotive industry employment market. That would be an undesirable outcome for The Don of Paint. The company might choose (or be forced if it closes its business) not to proceed with the nomination application. That would be an undesirable outcome for the applicant. If the Tribunal sets aside the cancellation decision, the applicant may be able to obtain a bridging visa more easily to allow him to stay in Australia to await the outcome of the nomination application. Of course, that is the more desirable outcome for The Don of Paint and the applicant. The Tribunal considers the most important factors in this review to be the extent to which the applicant’s proposed stay in Australia is consistent with the purpose of his 482 visa and the potentially deleterious effect on The Don of Paint if the applicant must return to Ireland before its nomination application has been decided. Both of those factors favour not cancelling the applicant’s 482 visa because that will give the applicant the best chance of being able to remain in Australia to await the outcome of The Don of Paint’s nomination application. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers the preferable outcome in this review is to set aside the cancellation decision.
However, that finding is limited strictly to whether the applicant’s 482 visa should be cancelled in all the circumstances now before the Tribunal. It does not constitute a direction of any kind in relation to any future applications for visas (including bridging visas) by the applicant, whether in the immediate term or the longer term.

DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 482 - Temporary Skill Shortage visa.
L. Hawas
Senior Member

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration
Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review
Procedural Fairness
Jurisdiction
Statutory Construction
Remedies
Appeal

[2022] AATA 2705

10 February 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Appeal