Rajwinder Kaur (Migration)

[2020] AATA 2718

Rajwinder Kaur (Migration) [2020] AATA 2718 (24 March 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Rajwinder Kaur
Mr Amandeep Singh Gill

CASE NUMBER:  1814730

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/642421

MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic

DATE AND TIME OF

ORAL DECISION AND REASONS:         24 March 2020 at 11:30 am (VIC time)

DATE OF WRITTEN RECORD:                8 April 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

Statement made on 08 April 2020 at 4:43pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 457 (Temporary work (Skilled)) – no approved nomination – decision under review affirmed       

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 457.223, 457.321

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 2 May 2018 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) Subclass 457 visas under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. At the hearing on 24 March 2020, the Tribunal made an oral decision and gave an oral statement of decision and reasons. The following is the written record of those reasons.

   STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

3. Based on the evidence before it, including the applicant’s oral evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the first named applicant is, at the time of the Tribunal’s decision, the subject of an approved business nomination, which has not ceased, or that there is an approved nomination of an occupation in relation to the first named applicant that has not ceased.

4. The Tribunal finds that the first named applicant does not satisfy cl. 457.223(4)(a).

5. As the first named applicant dos not satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of a Subclass 457 visa, the second named applicant does not satisfy the secondary criteria for the grant of the visa, in particular cl.457.321, which requires that the applicant must be a member of a family unit of the person having satisfied the primary criteria is the holder of a 457 visa.

6. For the reasons stated the Tribunal finds that the requirement for the Standard Business Sponsored stream have not been met.  No claim has been made in respect of other streams in cl.457.223 and there is no evidence that the applicant would be able to satisfy the specific criteria in those streams.

   DECISION

7. The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

   Antonio Dronjic
   Member