Raval (Migration)

[2020] AATA 5776

Raval (Migration) [2020] AATA 5776 (2 December 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Tejaskumar Rajendrakumar Raval
Mrs Sejalben Tejaskumar Raval
Miss Siya Tejaskumar Raval
Master Bhavya Tejaskumar Raval

CASE NUMBER:  1901544

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/978424

MEMBER:Mr S Norman

DATE:2 December 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 457 visa:

·cl.457.223(4)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 02 December 2020 at 12:08pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) – standard business sponsor – Airconditioning and Refrigeration Mechanic – subject of an approved nomination – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
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). The Department delegate’s decision was lodged with the Tribunal.

2. The visa applicants applied for the visa on 1 March 2018. 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.

3. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 7 January 2019 on the basis that cl.457.223(4)(a) was not met.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 September 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the former owner of the applicant company (Mr Haddadi) and the new owner of the applicant company (Mr Mark Poole). 

5. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. After then discussing the claims at hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant was given a meaningful opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   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 applicant applied for the grant of a Temporary Work(Skilled) (Subclass 457) visa on the basis they had been nominated for the position of Airconditioning and Refrigeration Mechanic (ANZSCO: 342111), by their associated sponsor (SA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES NSW PTY LTD ATF ELREP SERVICES TRUST – now called Noorco Pty Ltd).

9. The Department subsequently advised the applicant the nomination application lodged by their associated sponsor had been refused. The applicant was provided an opportunity to comment. At the time of the delegate’s decision, no material comment had been made. The delegate then found the applicant did not meet cl.457.223(4)(a).

10. The delegate then considered cl.457.321 (member of the family unit). However, as no person met the primary criteria for the grant of the visa, none were entitled to the visa based on their membership of the family unit of a person who had. The delegate then refused to grant the Subclass 457, Temporary Business Entry visa.

11. On 2 December 2020, the Tribunal approved the nomination of the associated nominator (Noorco Pty Ltd – AAT # 1836715). For this reason, the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) are met.

12. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 457 visa.

    DECISION

13. The Tribunal remits the applications for Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 457 visa:

    ·cl.457.223(4)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Mr S Norman
    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.