Members Church of God International New South Wales (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Temporary Activity visa (Subclass 408) by a Filipino citizen seeking to work as a religious worker in Australia. The delegate had refused the visa, finding the applicant did not meet the criteria under clause 408.219A of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically that the applicant lacked appropriate qualifications and experience for religious work, and therefore did not satisfy the alternative criteria in subclause 408.223(d). The Tribunal had invited the applicant to provide updated information regarding their qualifications and experience, but no response was received by the specified deadline.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 408.223(d) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which forms part of the alternative criteria for the Subclass 408 visa. This clause relates to the applicant being engaged in religious work. The Tribunal was required to determine this based on the information available, given the applicant's failure to respond to the request for further information.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had lost their entitlement to appear before it, as per section 360(3) of the Act, due to failing to provide requested information. Consequently, the Tribunal was limited to the evidence on file, which included documents lodged in January 2019 and a submission in February 2019. The Tribunal noted that the term "Religious worker" is not defined in the Act or Regulations. It examined the applicant's purported role as a "Regular Church Worker" as described in an "Employment Certificate" from 2019, which detailed responsibilities such as managing church assignments and reporting on church activities. However, the Tribunal found that the available information did not demonstrate that the applicant possessed the appropriate qualifications and experience to undertake the religious work activity in Australia as required by the visa provisions.

As an essential requirement for the visa was not met, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the Temporary Activity visa.