KAUR (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 724
•9 April 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
KAUR (Migration) [2019] AATA 724
[2019] AATA 724
9 April 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a nomination for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457. The prospective employer, The Beauty & Brow Parlour Pty Ltd, nominated the occupation of Hair or Beauty Salon Manager (ANZSCO 142114) for the first applicant. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the nomination met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Tribunal considered the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a), which mandates that a nomination must have been approved, made by a standard business sponsor at the time of approval, and that the approval must not have ceased. The Tribunal found that the nomination for the Hair or Beauty Salon Manager occupation had been approved under section 140GB of the Act. It was also satisfied that the nominator, The Beauty & Brow Parlour Pty Ltd, was a standard business sponsor at the time of approval and that the nomination had not ceased.
Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the first applicant met the criteria set out in clause 457.223(4)(a). Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the first applicant satisfies this specific criterion.
The Tribunal considered the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a), which mandates that a nomination must have been approved, made by a standard business sponsor at the time of approval, and that the approval must not have ceased. The Tribunal found that the nomination for the Hair or Beauty Salon Manager occupation had been approved under section 140GB of the Act. It was also satisfied that the nominator, The Beauty & Brow Parlour Pty Ltd, was a standard business sponsor at the time of approval and that the nomination had not ceased.
Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the first applicant met the criteria set out in clause 457.223(4)(a). Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the first applicant satisfies this specific criterion.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Intention
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
KAUR (Migration) [2019] AATA 724
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0