Kiranjeet (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 2578
•25 March 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kiranjeet (Migration) [2019] AATA 2578
[2019] AATA 2578
25 March 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa. The applicant, Kiranjeet, had been granted the visa based on a nomination by her sponsor, Galaxy, for the position of 'hairdresser'. The Department of Immigration had issued a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation, alleging that the applicant had been working for an employer other than her sponsor, Preet Brothers Pty Ltd, which was not an associated entity of Galaxy. The applicant contended that her presence at Preet Brothers was solely for training purposes, organised by her employer to learn about specific hair colouring products.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had breached a condition of her visa, specifically condition 8107(3)(a)(ii)(B), which mandates that the visa holder must work only in a position within the business of their sponsor or an associated entity. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's work at Preet Brothers constituted a breach of this condition and, if so, whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's presence and work at Clayton Salon (operated by Preet Brothers Pty Ltd) was not in a position within the business of her sponsor or an associated entity, thus satisfying the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958. While the applicant claimed the work was for training, the Tribunal found the evidence presented by the Department, including work rosters and employee attestations, to be more persuasive than the applicant's and her sponsor's statements. The Tribunal considered that the purpose of the 457 visa was to work for an approved sponsor, and the applicant's actions were not in line with this purpose, weighing heavily in favour of cancellation.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal noted it had no jurisdiction concerning a second applicant.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had breached a condition of her visa, specifically condition 8107(3)(a)(ii)(B), which mandates that the visa holder must work only in a position within the business of their sponsor or an associated entity. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's work at Preet Brothers constituted a breach of this condition and, if so, whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's presence and work at Clayton Salon (operated by Preet Brothers Pty Ltd) was not in a position within the business of her sponsor or an associated entity, thus satisfying the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958. While the applicant claimed the work was for training, the Tribunal found the evidence presented by the Department, including work rosters and employee attestations, to be more persuasive than the applicant's and her sponsor's statements. The Tribunal considered that the purpose of the 457 visa was to work for an approved sponsor, and the applicant's actions were not in line with this purpose, weighing heavily in favour of cancellation.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal noted it had no jurisdiction concerning a second applicant.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Kiranjeet (Migration) [2019] AATA 2578
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Rani & Ors v MIMA
[1997] FCA 1493
Newall v MIMA
[1999] FCA 1624
Rani & Ors v MIMA
[1997] FCA 1493