Ozkan (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3299

Ozkan (Migration) [2019] AATA 3299 (21 July 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Erdal Ozkan

CASE NUMBER:  1813701

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/3946239

MEMBER:Andrew George

DATE:21 July 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Darwin

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to approve the applicant’s visa.

Statement made on 21 July 2019 at 4:44pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) – nomination refused – no response provided – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 cl 457.223(4)(a)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 26 April 2018 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) Subclass 457 visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’).

2. The Date of Visa Application is 23 November 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination. The applicant did not satisfy subclause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (‘the Regulations’) and did not satisfy the criteria of regulation 457.223 of Schedule 2. The applicant was also not a member of a family unit of a person who already holds a subclass 457 visa, having satisfied the primary criteria.

3. The history of this matter is set out in the decision of case number 1810373 dated 17 June 2019. That was a decision of the Tribunal to affirm the decision not to approve the nomination following a joint Hearing with this matter on 13 May 2019. Further to that decision, on 19 June 2019 the Tribunal made an invitation to comment on or respond to information under s.359A. This information was that the nomination has been refused and that this would, if relied upon, be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. Following a request made on 1 July 2019, the Tribunal granted an extension of time to respond from 3 July 2019 to 18 July 2019. Despite the grant of an extension, no response to this invitation has been received by the Tribunal. On the basis of the material before it, in particular the decision of case number 1810373, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is not the subject of an approved nomination.

   DECISION

4. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to approve the applicant’s visa.

   Andrew George
   Member