Rizan (Migration)

Case

[2021] AATA 453

22 February 2021


Rizan  (Migration) [2021] AATA 453 (22 February 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Fathima Ayesha Rizan
Mr Mohamed Rizan Abdul Razak
Master Raquib Abdul Razak Mohamed Rizan

CASE NUMBER:  2005018

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2015/2827718

MEMBER:Bridget Cullen

DATE:22 February 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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 22 February 2021 at 3.47pm

CATCHWORDS


MIGRATION – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) – Federal Circuit Court remittal – standard business sponsorship stream – subject of approved position nomination – refusal of related nomination application set aside on review – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

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 of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the visa applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

  2. The visa applicants applied for the visa on 28 September 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 (Cth) (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 28 February 2017 on the basis that cl 457.223(4)(a) was not met because the applicant was not subject to an approved nomination.

  5. The most recent associated nomination application, being lodged by Estate Agents Pty Ltd, was affirmed by the Tribunal on 4 January 2019. The applicants’ original application for review was also affirmed on 23 January 2019. Applications to the Federal Circuit Court were subsequently lodged. Both applications were remitted by the Federal Circuit Court to the Tribunal due to jurisdictional error.

  6. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 27 October 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was held conjointly with the application for review lodged by Estate Agents Pty Ltd, and Mr Adam Loadsman appeared on behalf of the company.

  7. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

  9. The issue in the present case is whether the primary visa applicant meets the requirements of cl 457.223(4)(a).

    Requirement for an approved nomination

  10. 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.

  11. On 22 February 2021, the Tribunal set aside the decision to refuse the nomination lodged by Estate Agents Pty Ltd, and substituted a decision to approve the nomination. This nomination identified the primary applicant in the position of Customer Service Manager (ANZSCO 149212).

  12. For these reasons the requirements of cl 457.223(4)(a) are met.

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

  14. As the primary review applicant meets the requirements of cl 457.223(4)(a), it follows that the applications for the secondary applicants’ applications should be remitted for reconsideration by the Department.

    DECISION

  15. 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.

    Bridget Cullen
    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.

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Jurisdiction

  • Remedies

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0