Maoko (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa, Subclass 408 (Temporary Activity), by an applicant seeking to remain in Australia as a religious worker. The decision was made by R. Skaros, a Senior Member of the Tribunal. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the specific requirements for the religious worker stream of this visa subclass.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria set out in clause 408.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which outlines the requirements for the religious worker stream. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant intended to provide services as a religious worker (cl.408.223(a)) and whether they had been invited to do so by a lawfully operating religious institution in Australia (cl.408.223(b)). The definition of a "religious institution" under regulation 1.03 was also a key consideration.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's role as Bishop with Forward in Faith Ministries International Ltd, involving overseeing pastoral staff, coordinating activities, teaching, praying, and shepherding, satisfied the requirement to provide services as a religious worker. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the sponsoring organisation met the definition of a religious institution, noting its objectives aligned with promoting religious objects and its constitution demonstrated a commitment to Christian faith. The Tribunal also considered that the sponsor had previously been eligible for charity tax concessions, and while current tax office and charities commission documents were provided, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration of the remaining criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Temporary Activity (Class GG) visas for reconsideration. The direction was that the first named applicant met the criteria under cl.408.223 and cl.408.219A of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.