Rasalan Rodriguez (Migration)

[2017] AATA 3156

Rasalan Rodriguez (Migration) [2017] AATA 3156 (13 November 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Marilie Melchor Rasalan Rodriguez
Mr Noel De Guia Rodriguez

CASE NUMBER:  1703555

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/231068

MEMBER:John Cipolla

DATE:13 November 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 13 November 2017 at 10:41am

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) – Standard business sponsor – Requirement for applicant to be subject of an approved nomination – Former sponsor subject of a sponsorship bar - Applicant not subject of an approved nomination – Decision affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 140M(2)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 457.223

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 21 January 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 9 February 2017 on the basis that cl.457.223(4) was not met because the first named visa applicant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) was not the subject of an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor.

5. The applicant was invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal on 13 November 2017. The applicant failed to attend the hearing and no reason for the applicant’s non-attendance was provided to the Tribunal and in these circumstances the Tribunal is able to proceed to decision.

6. The applicants were represented in relation to the review.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.457.223(4).

   Requirement for an approved nomination

9. 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. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that an application for approval as a standard business sponsor was lodged by the applicant’s prospective employer Meaningful Care Pty Ltd. This application was refused by the Department of Immigration on 11 January 2017.

10. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that Meaningful Care Pty Ltd had previously traded as MPJEL Care Pty Ltd. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal (differently constituted) in matter number 1616637 affirmed a sponsorship bar under s.140M(2) of the Migration Act precluding MPJEL Care Pty Ltd (now trading as Meaningful Care Pty Ltd) from being an approved standard business sponsor or applying to become an approved standard business sponsor until 19 September 2021.

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

12. 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

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

    John Cipolla
    Senior 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.