Lipotanovic (Migration)

Case

[2018] AATA 4266

12 September 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Lipotanovic (Migration) [2018] AATA 4266 [2018] AATA 4266 12 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of a visa applicant seeking a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa. The applicant was nominated by The Radosh Family Trust atf D&S Radosh Pty Ltd for the occupation of Sales and Marketing Manager. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a) of the Regulations, specifically concerning an approved nomination.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination for the Subclass 457 visa, as required by cl.457.223(4)(a). This involved assessing whether the nomination itself had been approved and if the nominating entity was a valid standard business sponsor whose approval was still in force.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's nomination by The Radosh Family Trust was approved on 12 September 2018, and the Radosh Family Trust's approval as a standard business sponsor, which commenced on 12 April 2016, was still in force until 12 April 2021. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the nomination had been approved under section 140GB of the Migration Act 1958 and that cl.457.223(4)(a) was met.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal remitted the application for the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the visa applicant meets the criteria specified in cl.457.223(4)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Minister is to consider the remaining criteria for the Subclass 457 visa.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Remedies

  • Appeal

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0