Hans (Migration)

Case

[2022] AATA 2242

30 June 2022


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Hans (Migration) [2022] AATA 2242 [2022] AATA 2242 30 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457. The applicant sought to work as a Customer Service Manager for Malwai Pty Ltd, a company nominated by the applicant’s relatives. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor.

The legal issue the Tribunal was required to determine was whether the applicant could satisfy the criterion that there was an approved nomination for the position of Customer Service Manager. This was because the Tribunal had previously affirmed a decision to refuse a nomination application lodged by Malwai Pty Ltd for this specific role in relation to the applicant. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to comment on this refusal, noting that if the nomination remained refused, the applicant might be unable to meet the primary criterion under cl 457.223(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 457.223(4)(a)(i) requires an approved nomination, and as the nomination application by Malwai Pty Ltd had been refused and this refusal affirmed, there was no approved nomination in place. The applicant’s response highlighted personal circumstances and a belief that the nomination was rejected due to a familial relationship with a director, which the applicant felt was an unfair basis for refusal. However, the Tribunal found that the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream had not been met due to the lack of an approved nomination.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas. The Tribunal noted that no claims had been made regarding other streams within clause 457.223, and there was no evidence that the applicant could satisfy the specific criteria for those alternative streams.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Jurisdiction

  • Natural Justice

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0