Kamatham Sandeep Kumar (Migration)

Kamatham Sandeep Kumar (Migration) [2023] AATA 106 (9 January 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Mr Kamatham Sandeep Kumar
Mrs Vani Sharmila Chiluka
Miss Rutvi Varenya Kamatham
Mr Vivaan Arjun Kamatham
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Vaibhav Patel (MARN: 1466279)
CASE NUMBER:  1928338
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/6000515
MEMBER:Alan McMurran
DATE:9 January 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for Skilled Independent (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criterion for a Subclass 189 visa:
·cl 189.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

The Tribunal remits the applications for Skilled Independent (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the secondary applicants meet the following criterion for a Subclass 189 visa:
·cl 189.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 09 January 2023 at 9:52am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visa – Subclass 189 (Skilled - Independent) – software engineer – points test – relevant overseas employment experience in related occupation – limited documentation and salary paid in cash – most given to father for family expenditure – additional information and documentation provided to tribunal, including statements from work supervisors – no suggestion of incorrect information or bogus documents – positive skills test – tasks of position – members of family unit – decision made without hearing necessary – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 93, 94, 96(2), 350, 359(2), 360(2)(a)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 1.15D, 1.15I, 2.26A, Schedule 2, cls 189.224, 189.311, Schedule 6, Part 6D.3
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application lodged 8 October 2019 for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 4 October 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) Subclass 189 (Skilled - Independent) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). This is a points based visa designed for skilled applicants who have submitted an expression of interest and received an invitation to apply for the visa.
The first named applicant (the applicant), Mr Kamatham Sandeep Kumar, is a citizen of the Republic of India. The second to fourth named applicants (the secondary applicants) are members of the applicant’s family unit. The secondary applicants are dependent upon the applicant and the outcome of his visa application for their own visas.[1]
[1] Reg. cl. 189.311
The applicant was invited to apply for the visa on 11 November 2018, to work in the nominated occupation of Software Engineer (ANZSCO 261313). The applicant applied for the visa on 7 January 2019. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 189 - Skilled - Independent visa are set out in Part 189 - Skilled - Independent of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).
The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not satisfy the ‘points test’ criterion in cl 189.224.The delegate did not accept the applicant’s evidence that he had any relevant overseas employment experience in the occupation prior to coming to Australia to study. As a consequence, the applicant had insufficient points to meet the Points test requirement.
On 21 October 2022, the Tribunal sought information from the applicant under s 359(2).The applicant responded within time by 3 November 2022 and made written submissions and provided information and documents, some of which had not previously been provided and which were sourced by the applicant following the Tribunal request and to respond to concerns raised by the delegate’s decision about his prior employment.
On the basis of the information and documents produced, the Tribunal proceeded to cancel a hearing set for 22 December 2022 and has proceeded to finalise this merits’ review without a hearing, and on the basis of the applicant’s written submissions now received and the Department’s available information.[2]
[2] See s 360 (2)(a)
The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant satisfies the points test criterion which requires that the applicant’s score, when assessed in relation to the visa under Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act:
·is not less than the score stated in the invitation to apply for the visa and
·is not less than the ‘qualifying score’
In this instance the qualifying score is 75 points, and which is the score stated in the invitation. According to the delegate’s assessment, the correct score for the applicant when calculated on the available evidence is 65 points, being less than the score required.
The Tribunal has had regard to the available electronic information from the Department file, the Tribunal’s file, and recent submissions including documents and information from the applicants. The Tribunal also has regard to Department Policy, relevant case law, and the Act and Regulations.
The Act and Regulations
Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act provides for a points system under which an applicant is given an assessed score based on a prescribed number of points for particular attributes.
The qualifications and points applicable to this case are prescribed in Schedule 6D to the Regulations (reg 2.26AC). An applicant achieves the qualifying score if their assessed score is more than or equal to the applicable pass mark (s 94 of the Act), which is set by the Minister from time to time under s 96(2). The Tribunal must consider the applicant against the qualifications and points prescribed in Schedule 6D, and the pass mark as in force at the time of the delegate’s assessment and as in force at the time of this assessment and apply whichever is more favourable to the applicant (ss 93 and 350 of the Act).
Some elements of the points test relate to the nominated skilled occupation. An occupation is a ‘skilled occupation’ if: it is specified by the relevant instrument as a skilled occupation; and, if a number of points are specified in the instrument as being available - for which the number of points are available; and that is applicable to the person in accordance with the specification of the occupation (reg 1.15I). The relevant instrument for this purpose is Legislative Instrument IMMI18/051. In the present case, the applicant’s nominated occupation is Software Engineer (ANZSCO 261313).
Does the applicant have the qualifying score applying the law in force at the time of the delegate’s assessment?
Part 6D.1 – Age qualifications
Points are available under this Part if the applicant was aged between 18 and 44 years at the time of invitation to apply for the visa.
At the time of invitation the applicant was aged 34 years. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to 25 points under this part.
Part 6D.2 – English language qualifications
Points are available under this Part on the basis of the applicant’s level of English language proficiency at the time of invitation to apply for the visa. Points are provided for either ‘superior English’ (20 points) or ‘proficient English’ (10 points). No points are provided for ‘competent’ English.
The applicant provided a copy of his PTE Academic test score dated 27 August 2018. The applicant achieved an overall score of 75.
The Minister has provided in the relevant instrument, IMMI 15/005, the scores required for English language testing at both ‘superior’ and ‘proficient’ levels of English.
A level of ‘proficient’ English as per regulation 1.15D requires the test to be undertaken in the 3 years immediately for the day the Minister invited the person to apply for the visa. A PTE academic score of at least 65 is required in each of the 4 test components of speaking, reading, writing, and listening. A PTE academic score of at least 79 is required in each of those 4 components for a ‘superior’ grading [reg 1.15EA].
On the available information, as the applicant obtained a score of at least 65 in each of the 4 components, the applicant achieved a level of ‘proficient’ English.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to 10 points under this part.
Part 6D.3 – Overseas employment experience qualifications
Points may be available under this Part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant had been employed outside Australia in the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation or a closely related skilled occupation for a period totalling at least 36, 60, or 96 months in the 10 years immediately before that time.
The application sets out the qualifications and experience asserted by the applicant. The applicant obtained a Bachelor of Technology degree in India in November 2005 and a second degree for the same study in August 2011.
The application further asserts the applicant worked in a related occupation in India as follows:
·As “Associate Consultant” for Descon IT Solutions from January 2006 to May 2009.
·as a “Functional Consultant” for a corporation, NOA Soft Solutions (“NOA”), in the period from 19 May 2009 to 31 July 2009.
·as a “Functional Consultant” for NOA from 1 August 2009 to 15 October 2014.
On the available information, the applicant resigned his employment in India from NOA, effective 15 October 2014. Immigration movement records show the applicant arrived in Australia for the first time on 18 November 2014 on a student visa.
On the basis of his information, the applicant claims to have been employed overseas in the nominated occupation through related employment, for a period of at least 5 years (2009-2014) in the previous 10 years preceding the application. The applicant claims on the point test entitlement [6D32] as at the time of application that he should receive 10 points towards the total test score. The Department decision awarded no points for prior overseas employment in a related occupation.
In support of his claim, the applicant submitted to the Tribunal on 3 November 2022 the following response (partly extracted) to the decision:
“ I had applied for a skilled independent permanent point tested subclass 189 visa on 07 January 2019 which was subsequently refused on 04 October 2019. The reason for refusal mentioned in the decision record stated that I was assessed not meeting the legislative criteria for the grant of my visa…..
I claimed my overseas employment experience as a Function Consultant in India from 19th May 2009 to 15th October 2014 from NOA SOFT Solutions, where I worked full-time. Following documents were submitted in support of my application.
1.Employment contract
2.payslips between July 2009 to August 2014
3.employment reference letter
4.final settlement report
5.form 16 between 2010 to 2013
6.resignation letter
7.salary hike letters issue between 2011 to 2013
8.positive skills assessment from Australian Computer Society
On 2 April 2019, I was requested to provide further evidence of employment and in response to the request. I had already submitted all the possible documents that I was able to collect before I received this request. My migration agent had provided an explanation that the salary was received in cash and therefore we had submitted all the possible documents that I could collect. Also, I had provided a cover letter from my end explaining on how I used to funds and provided supporting documents such as bank statement and fixed deposits….”
The applicant’s cover letter to the Department dated 14 April 2019 explains:
“I am writing to explain how my earnings from employment between 2009 and 2014 were spent. I used to give a significant portion of this to my father Kamatham Nagaraju towards family maintenance. My father used his money to pay for insurance premiums, my brother’s college fees in addition to the routine family expenditure. Any left-over money was deposited in savings account or invested in fixed deposits periodically when the money became sizable. Portion of money I kept for my expenditure was usually spent in cash, as over 70% of transactions at the time in India were cash based and as there were restrictions and costs attached to withdraw money from ATMs.”
The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 21 October 2022 requesting further information. The Tribunal request referred the applicant to the requirements of the points test in Schedule 6D of the Regulations. The applicant was invited to provide further information as to the calculation of his test score.
The applicant responded on 3 November 2022 as set out above, and included the following additional information:
·a letter/affidavit from his work supervisor at NOA
·(subsequently) letter dated 28 November 2022 from chartered accountant, P Krishna Prasad & Co
·sworn statement from the supervising employer, Mr Peddi Rahul, made 3 November 2022 and notarised the same day
The applicant also sought to rely on the documents previously provided which included:
·employment information (contract, payslips, employer reference, settlement and resignation information)
·skills assessment from ACS dated 3 August 2017
·agent’s submission
·Indian bank information and statements
That information, if accepted, establishes the following facts:
a.the applicant was employed by NOA from 19 May 2009 to 15 October 2014 (a total of 66 months); the applicant resigned voluntarily from that employment effective October 2014 to travel to Australia where he arrived in November 2014
b.the applicant was employed by NOA on a full-time basis and for a salary which was adjusted upwards during that period of employment; at time of his resignation, the applicant’s basic fortnightly salary was (estimation) AUD $140.76 and his termination payment received was AUD $1075.54.[3]
c.the applicant received 3 salary increases for each of the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, according to the accountant’s letter
d.during the period of the employment, the applicant completed tasks as a consulting business analyst, which according to his employment reference included: working with systems analysts and software developers and programmers to modify existing software and correct errors in performance, as well as developing, implementing and integrating computer programs. This included writing and maintaining program codes and validating software systems, utilising cloud infrastructure and implementing and releasing data analytics and models to determine system performance and standards
e.the ACS skills assessment dated 3 August 2017 states the applicant has been assessed as suitable for the occupation ANZSCO code 261313 (Software Engineer)
[3] based on AUD exchange rate for Indian rupiah at January 2014: 55 rupiah to AUD $1
The delegate did not accept the applicant’s statements. The delegate considered the work reference and relevant financial information including settlement letter and remuneration certificates were not “sufficiently articulated” so as to demonstrate the applicant performed the asserted work for at least 20 hours per week. Somewhat in contradiction, the delegate preferred evidence from “independent third parties” including bank statements and taxation documents as “corroborating evidence”, documents which the applicant had in fact provided. Those documents appear not to have carried much weight with the delegate.
The Tribunal in accordance with policy, and in this instance, attributes considerable weight to documents providing independent corroboration asserted by an applicant. This includes the financial information which demonstrates the applicant’s bank statements, and deposits, which he has sufficiently explained in his written submission, and which explanation the Tribunal accepts. This is particularly so where there is no suggestion of any fraudulent documents or incorrect information. India is not a place where the same orthodoxy applies for employment terms and conditions as is the case in Australia, and where it is not uncommon employees are paid in cash and bank deposit records may not reconcile with cash receipts and employee records, and where families share income and expenses on a familial and patriarchal basis as submitted.
In this instance, the Tribunal has also paid particular attention to the notarised affidavit, and which evidence was not available to the delegate. The witness, Mr Peddi Rahul, attests to the supervision of the applicant as a full-time employee at NOA in the period from 19 May 2009 to 15 October 2014. He states that “I can confirm that I had witnessed and monitored his (the applicant’s) work under my direct supervision and therefore I can confirm that he outperformed the following responsibilities during his employment”. The witness then identifies the tasks for the work performed, similar to those set out at paragraph 32 above.
The witness confirms that he is no longer working for NOA having left that employment and provides details of his current employment for HCL Technologies as a “supervisor”.
The Tribunal made its own internet enquiry in relation to the current status of NOA in India. That enquiry from publicly available Indian media confirmed the address of the company at Pune, and that the employer was a private corporation now subject to action for ‘strike off’ as at November 2022. This was not the case in September 2015. The employer’s social media (Facebook) information shows the corporation was active since 2004. It further shows the corporation was still listed as at March 2013.
The Tribunal concludes from all the available information referred to above, including from the witness, that the employer, NOA, was the corporation active during the period asserted by the applicant and where he was an employee from 2009 until 2014, and where the employer carried on business in the industry to which the applicant’s occupation is related, as a software engineer.
For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was in fact employed as asserted by him in the application, and for the period from May 2009 until his resignation in October 2014. The Tribunal rejects the delegate’s findings that the applicant was not employed in the nominated skilled occupation, or a closely related skilled occupation for at least 36 months while working in overseas employment.
For the above reasons ,the Tribunal finds that the applicant has established his employment overseas in a related industry and for a period totalling at least 60 months (May 2009-September 2014), but less than 96 months, in the relevant period (10 years) prior to lodgement of the application.
Therefore, subject to consideration of Part 6D.5 (below), the applicant is entitled to 10 points under this part.
Part 6D.4 – Australian employment qualifications
Points may be available under this Part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant had been employed in Australia in the nominated occupation or a closely related skilled occupation for a period totalling at least 12, 36, 60 or 96 months in the 10 years immediately before that time.
The applicant makes no claim in relation to an Australian employment qualification.
Therefore, subject to consideration of Part 6D.5, the applicant is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.5 - Aggregating points for employment experience qualifications
Under this part, if an applicant has qualifications mentioned in both Parts 6D.3 and 6D.4 and the combined number of points that would be awarded under those Parts is more than 20 points, 20 points must be given under this Part for the qualifications and no points are to be given under Part 6D.3 or 6D.4.

The combined number of points in this instance that would be awarded to the applicant under Parts 6D.3 and 6D.4 is 10 points.
As this is not more than an aggregate of 20 points, the applicant is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.6 – Australian professional year qualifications
Five points are available under this part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant had completed a professional year (that is, a course specified in an instrument) in Australia in the nominated occupation or a closely related skilled occupation for a period totalling at least 12 months in the immediately preceding 48 months.
The applicant makes a claim in respect of completion of a professional year in Australia in the nominated occupation or a closely related skilled occupation for a period totalling at least 12 months in the immediately preceding 48 months. The applicant submits and the Tribunal accepts that he completed the professional year program in accordance with the certificate from the Australian Computer Society (ACS), dated 14 September 2018, being a program available specifically for IT graduates.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to 5 points under this part.
Part 6D.7 – Educational qualifications
An applicant may be entitled to points under this Part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, he or she had met the requirements for the award of a specified Australian qualification or overseas qualification of a recognised standard. In determining whether an overseas qualification is of a ‘recognised standard’ (items 6D71(b), 6D72(b)), regard must be had to the matters set out in reg 2.26AC(5) which include recognition of the qualification by the relevant assessing authority, recognition of the qualification by a specified body, duration of the study and any other relevant matter.
The evidence is and the Tribunal accepts that the following qualifications were obtained by the applicant and certified as equivalent by the skill assessing body (ACS) on 3 August 2017:
·Bachelor of Technology Computer Science and Engineering from Jawaharlal Technology University, completed in April 2005, comparable to an AQF Bachelor degree with a Major in computing;
·Master of Technology (Enterprise Systems) from Federation University completed November 2016, comparable to an AQF Master Degree with a Major in computing.
On the basis of this assessment, the Tribunal finds the applicant meets the requirements for the award of at least a Bachelor degree by an Australian educational institution.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to 15 points under this part.
Part 6D.7A – Specialist educational qualifications
Points may be awarded under this part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant met the requirements for the award of a specialist educational qualification, as defined in reg 2.26AC(5A). The applicant must satisfy the Minister that they have met the requirements for the award of a master’s degree by research, or a doctoral degree, which included at least 2 academic years of study at an Australian educational institution in a field of education specified in the relevant instrument.
The applicant makes no claims in respect of any specialist educational qualifications as particularised in the Schedule.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.8 – Australian study qualifications
Five points may be awarded under this part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant met the Australian study requirement, as defined in reg 1.15F of the Regulations. To meet the Australian study requirement, the applicant must satisfy the Minister that they have completed one or more degrees, diplomas or trade qualifications for award by an Australian educational institution as a result of a registered course or courses, for which all instruction was in English. The applicant must have undertaken the courses in Australia while holding a visa authorising study and completed them in a total of at least 16 calendar months as a result of a total of at least two academic years study.
The available information and evidence is, and the Tribunal finds, that the applicant obtained a Master of Technology (Enterprise Systems) from Federation University in the period of the applicant’s enrolment at the University from 2015 until 2016 and where he studied full-time.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant has met the Australian study requirement in regulation 1.15F as having completed one or more degrees for award by an Australian educational institution, that was a registered course, completed in a total of at least 16 calendar months, as a result of the total of at least two academic years study for a course were all instruction was conducted in English and while the applicant was in Australia as the holder of a visa authorising such study.
As the Australian study requirement had been met at the time of invitation, the applicant is entitled to 5 points under this part.
Part 6D.9 – Credentialled community language qualifications
Five points may be awarded under this part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant had a qualification in a particular language awarded or accredited by a specified body, and at a specified standard for the language.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant has made no claims in respect of credentialled community language qualifications and hence he is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.10 – Study in regional Australia or a low-population growth metropolitan area qualification
The Tribunal has set out above that the applicant met the Australian Study requirement as defined in reg 1.15F, and reg 2.27D.
For the purposes of Part 6D.10 of the Schedule to the Regulations, the location of the campus where the education occurred must be a postcode as specified in a relevant instrument. The designated postcodes in the relevant instrument exclude Sydney where in this instance, the education occurred.
No claim is made for a qualification studied in a regional area or low growth population metropolitan area.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.11 – Partner qualifications
Five points may be awarded under this Part if the applicant has a spouse or de facto partner who is also an applicant for the same visa subclass and is not an Australian citizen or permanent resident and at the time the applicant was invited to apply for the visa, the spouse or de facto partner was under a specified age, nominated a specified skilled occupation, had been assessed as having suitable skills, and had competent English.
An amendment to the regulations commenced on 16 November 2019, amending the points test in schedule 6D. The amendment to the points test operates in respect of Subclass 189, 190 and 489 visas, yet to be assessed. The amending regulation provides for 5 points to be awarded in circumstances where there is a spouse or de facto partner with ‘competent’ English.
The applicant has provided a PTE academic result for his spouse, dated 20 September 2018, and who is a secondary applicant for the visa. The result for the applicant’s spouse, Mrs Vani Sharmila Chiluka, shows an overall score of 74 which is at the ‘’proficient’ level for the assessment. The regulation allows for an additional 5 points to be awarded where at the time of the invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant’s spouse had at least competent English. The applicant claims the application meets the provision in 6D113. The applicant does not claim to meet the additional requirements in 6D111, where allocation is made for 10 points in that circumstance.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is entitled to a score of 5 points under this part.
Part 6D.12 – State or Territory nomination qualifications
Points are available under this Part in certain circumstances for applicants who were invited to apply for a Subclass 190 (Skilled - Nominated) visa.
The applicant in this case has not been invited to apply for such a visa and is therefore not entitled to any points under this part.
Part 6D.13 – Designated area sponsorship qualifications
Points are available under this Part in certain circumstances for applicants who were invited to apply for a Subclass 489 (Skilled - Regional) (Provisional) visa or a Subclass 491 (Skilled Work Regional (Provisional)) visa. T
The applicant in this case has not been invited to apply for such a visa and is therefore not entitled to any points under this part.
Conclusion on points
Based on the above assessment, having regard to the legislation in effect at the time of the delegate’s assessment, the number of points to be awarded to the applicant under Schedule 6D is:
6D.1 - Age   25 points
6D.2 - English language   10 points
6D.3 - Overseas employment experience   10 points
6D.4 - Australian employment experience   0 points
6D.5 - Aggregated employment   0 points
6D.6 - Australian professional year   5 points
6D.7 - Educational   15 points
6D.7A – Specialist educational   0 points
6D.8 - Australian study   5 points
6D.9 - Credentialled community language   0 points
6D.10 -Study in regional Australia or a low-population growth metropolitan area qualification/ Study in designated regional area qualification   0 points
6D.11 - Partner qualifications   5 points
6D.12 - State or Territory nomination   0 points
6D.13 - area sponsorship qualifications/ Designated regional area nomination or sponsorship qualifications   0 points
Total points   75 points
The applicant’s assessed score under the points system is therefore 75 points.
At the time of the delegate’s assessment the pass mark was 65 points: Legislative Instrument IMMI18/067. The applicant has therefore achieved the qualifying score to pass the points test.
Has the applicant achieved the qualifying score applying the law in force at time of Tribunal’s assessment?
The Tribunal has found that the applicant is entitled to 5 points for a spouse or de facto partner with ‘competent English’ (Part 6D.11), and as per the amendment to the Regulations referred to above at paragraph 70, being the law in force as at the time of the Tribunal decision.
Has the applicant achieved the score stated in the invitation to apply for the visa?
It is also a requirement that the applicant’s score is not less than the score stated in the invitation to apply for the visa. The written invitation given to the applicant stated a score of 75 points. On the basis of the points assessment above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has achieved the score stated in the invitation to apply for the visa.
For the above reasons, the applicant is entitled to a maximum of 75 points under the points test. As the applicant’s score is not less than the score stated in the invitation to apply for the visa, and not less than the qualifying score, the applicant satisfies cl 189.224, which is a prescribed criterion for the grant of the visa. The appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria.
Secondary applicants
Regulation 189.311 requires that the secondary applicants are members of the family unit of a person who satisfies the primary criteria for a Subclass 189 visa.
The secondary applicants, as in this case, must also have made a combined application with the primary applicant, who now meets the primary criteria.
The Tribunal finds that the secondary applicants are members of the family unit of the applicant, who has met the requirements in regulation 189.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The secondary applicants have made a combined application with the applicant and therefore meet the criteria in r.189.311.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the applications for Skilled Independent (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criterion for a Subclass 189 visa:
·cl 189.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The Tribunal remits the applications for Skilled Independent (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the secondary applicants meet the following criterion for a Subclass 189 visa:
· cl 189.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
Alan McMurran
Member

[2023] AATA 106

9 January 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice