RACO (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Mr Raco, who sought review of a decision not to grant him a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa, Subclass 408, under the elite player, coach, instructor or adjudicator stream. The dispute centred on whether Mr Raco met the specific criteria for this visa subclass, particularly concerning a formal contract with his sponsor, the Tullibigeal Lake Cargelligo United Rugby Football Club, and a letter of endorsement from the relevant national sporting body.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if Mr Raco satisfied the requirements of clause 408.222(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause outlines the criteria for an applicant seeking to remain in Australia as an elite player, coach, instructor, or adjudicator, including having a formal agreement with an approved sponsor and providing a letter of endorsement from the national sporting body certifying the applicant's ability to perform at the Australian national level. The Tribunal also considered whether the case was appropriate for referral to the Minister under section 351 of the Migration Act 1958.

The Tribunal found that Mr Raco had met the requirement of entering into a formal agreement with the Tullibigeal Club, as evidenced by the signed contract. However, the Tribunal noted that a crucial requirement was a letter of endorsement from the national sporting body responsible for administering the sport in Australia, certifying the applicant's ability to play at the Australian national level. While the Australian Rugby League Limited (NRL) was identified as the relevant national sporting body, the Tribunal found that the necessary letter of endorsement had not been provided at the time of the delegate's decision. Although a letter was later provided to the Tribunal, the Tribunal affirmed the original decision not to grant the visa. Furthermore, the Tribunal decided not to refer the matter to the Minister under s 351, as no unique or exceptional circumstances were demonstrated, and Mr Raco's de facto partner did not appear to be an eligible sponsor for a partner visa, necessitating offshore application for alternative visas.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr Raco a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa, Subclass 408. The Tribunal also determined that it was not an appropriate case for referral to the Minister under s 351 of the Migration Act 1958.