Norris (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1408

Norris (Migration) [2018] AATA 1408 (23 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Jason Michael Norris
Ms Lois South

CASE NUMBER:  1621661

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/2811411

MEMBER:Ian Berry

DATE:23 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas.

Statement made on 23 April 2018 at 4:39pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 457 (Temporary work (Skilled )) – Standard business sponsor stream – Business nomination refused – Practice and Procedure – Information not provided within the prescribed period – No extension granted – Lost right to a hearing

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 ss 65, 359, 359C, 360, 363A

Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2 cls 457.223, 457.321

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the visa applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The visa applicants applied for the visa on 25 September 2015.

3. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class UC contained Subclass 457. The criteria for a Subclass 457 visa are set out in Part 457 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). One of the criteria to be satisfied at the time of decision is cl.457.223 which requires the visa applicant to satisfy one of the alternative ‘streams’ for the visa. One of these streams is contained in cl.457.223(4) which is set out in the attachment to this decision. In the present case, specific claims have been made against cl.457.223(4) which applies to sponsorship for employment in an occupation by a standard business sponsor. No claims have been made in respect of the other alternative streams in cl.457.223.

4. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 28 November 2016 on the basis that cl.457.223(4) was not met because the review applicant did not have the approval of a nomination by reason of the review applicant’s prospective employer having it’s nomination refused on 30 May 2016.

5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. The issue in the present case is whether the primary visa applicant meets the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(iii).  Does the review applicant’s prospective employer have nomination approval for the position he was performing.

   Requirement for an approved nomination

7. Clause 457.223(4)(a) requires that there is an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased.

8. The delegate in her decision of 28 November 2016 stated that the review applicant did not have an approved nominator by reason of his employer Seven Star Plastering and Rendering having its nomination refused by the Department on 30 May 2016.

9. That nominator lodged an application for review with this Tribunal on 20 June 2016.

10. The nominator’s application for review was finally determined on 29 May 2017 with the Tribunal affirming the Department’s decision.  Therefore, the review applicant did not have a nomination as required by 457.223(4)(iii).  There is no evidence of the nominator lodging an appeal of the Tribunal’s decision.

11. On 6 March 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant pursuant to s.359 of the Act, inviting the review applicant to provide information that demonstrated the review applicant met all of the requirements of the criteria in clauses 457.223 and 457.321 of schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 at the time of the Tribunal’s decision.

12. The invitation was sent to the last address provided in connection with the review and advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by 20 March 2018, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the and the review applicant would lose any entitlement he, she or they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

13. The review applicant has not provided the information (or any information) within the prescribed period and no extension has been granted. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40. The Tribunal has decided to proceed to decision without taking further steps to obtain the information.

14. For these reasons the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) are not met.

15. The secondary applicant is dependent for the grant of the visa on the review applicant satisfying the primary criteria and being the holder of a subclass 457 Visa.  Accordingly, the secondary applicant does not meet cl. 457.321.

16. The Tribunal does not have any evidence before it that the secondary applicant meets the primary criteria in her own right.  Consequently, the secondary applicant does not satisfy the relevant criteria on for the visa namely cl. 457.321.

17. For the reasons above, the Tribunal finds that the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream have not been met. No claims have been made in respect of the other streams in cl.457.223 and there is no evidence that the visa applicant would be able to satisfy the specific criteria for those streams.

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas.

    Ian Berry
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  -  CLAUSE 457.223 (EXTRACT)

    457.223

    …

    Standard business sponsorship

    …

    (4)The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:

    (a)each of the following applies:

    (i)    a nomination of an occupation in relation to the applicant has been approved under section 140GB of the Act;

    (ii)     the nomination was made by a person who was a standard business sponsor at the time the nomination was approved;

    (iii)    the approval of the nomination has not ceased as provided for in regulation 2.75; and

    (aa)the nominated occupation is specified in an instrument in writing for paragraph 2.72 (10) (a) or (aa) that is in effect; and

    (ba)either:

    (i)    the nominated occupation is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subparagraph; or

    (ii)     each of the following applies:

    (A)the applicant is employed to work in the nominated occupation;

    (B)if the person who made the approved nomination met paragraph 2.59(d) or (e), or paragraph 2.68(e) or (f), in the person’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor, the applicant is employed to work in a position in the person’s business or in a business of an associated entity of the person;

    (C)if the person who made the approved nomination met paragraph 2.59(h), or paragraph 2.68(i), in the person’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor, the applicant is employed to work in a position in the person’s business; and

    (d)the Minister is satisfied that:

    (i)    the applicant’s intention to perform the occupation is genuine; and

    (ii)     the position associated with the nominated occupation is genuine; and

    (da)the applicant has the skills, qualifications and employment background that the Minister considers necessary to perform the tasks of the nominated occupation; and

    (e)if the Minister requires the applicant to demonstrate that he or she has the skills that are necessary to perform the occupation — the applicant demonstrates that he or she has those skills in the manner specified by the Minister; and

    (eb)if:

    (i)    the applicant is not an exempt applicant; and

    (ii)     subclause (6) does not apply to the applicant;

    the applicant:

    (iv)   has undertaken a language test specified by the Minister in a legislative instrument for this subparagraph; and

    (v)    achieved within the period specified by the Minister in the instrument, in a single attempt at the test, the score specified by the Minister in the instrument; and

    (ec)if the Minister requires the applicant to demonstrate his or her English language proficiency — the applicant demonstrates his or her English language proficiency in the manner specified by the Minister; and

    (f)either:

    (i)    there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the approved nomination mentioned in paragraph (a) or a person associated with that person; or

    (ii)     it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the approved nomination mentioned in paragraph (a) or a person associated with that person.

    …

    (6)This subclause applies to an applicant if:

    (a)the base rate of pay for the applicant, under the terms and conditions of employment about which the Minister was last satisfied for paragraph 2.72(10)(c), is at least the level of salary worked out in the way specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this paragraph; and

    (b)the Minister considers that granting a Subclass 457 visa to the applicant would be in the interests of Australia.

    …

    (11)In subclause (4):

    exempt applicant means an applicant who is in a class of applicants specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subclause.