Rowlands (Migration)

Case

[2023] AATA 1711

2 June 2023


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Rowlands (Migration) [2023] AATA 1711 [2023] AATA 1711 2 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa, Subclass 887, brought before the Tribunal by the applicant, Rowlands, and three other named applicants. The central dispute revolved around whether the primary applicant had met the secondary criteria for the visa, specifically the requirement to have worked full-time in a specified regional area for at least one year.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied clause 887.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that at the time of visa application, the applicant must have worked full-time in a specified regional area for a total of at least one year, while holding one or more of the specified skilled or bridging visas. The definition of a "specified regional area" was also relevant, referring to areas designated by the Minister in a relevant written instrument.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented regarding the applicant's employment between October 2016 and December 2017. It considered a letter from a former site supervisor, Mr. Russell Weiss, who stated that the applicant was subcontracted to provide bricklaying services on a full-time basis during this period, working approximately 40 to 50 hours per week at various regional addresses. This evidence was corroborated by the applicant's taxation returns, notices of assessment, and business activity statements. The Tribunal accepted that one calendar year is equivalent to 12 months or 365 days and, based on the documentation, concluded that the applicant had indeed worked full-time in a specified regional area for at least one year while holding a qualifying visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for the Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visas for reconsideration. The direction was that the primary applicant met clause 887.213, and the applications of the second, third, and fourth named applicants should be reconsidered on the basis that they met the secondary criteria for the visa.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Remedies

  • Statutory Construction

  • Procedural Fairness

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0