ROY (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 3611
•28 June 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
ROY (Migration) [2019] AATA 3611
[2019] AATA 3611
28 June 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457, standard business sponsor stream, for a community worker. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically regarding an approved nomination and the applicant's skills, qualifications, and employment background. The Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination that had not ceased and if they possessed the necessary skills and experience for the nominated occupation.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on two key requirements of clause 457.223(4). Firstly, it examined clause 457.223(4)(a), which mandates an approved nomination that has not ceased. The Tribunal found that the applicant's previously approved nomination had expired on 1 October 2017, and crucially, a savings provision introduced with the repeal of the 457 visa program on 18 March 2018 did not have retrospective effect to revive nominations that had already ceased. Therefore, as at 18 March 2018, there was no valid approved nomination in place. Secondly, the Tribunal considered clause 457.223(4)(da), which requires the applicant to have the skills, qualifications, and employment background necessary for the nominated occupation. Based on the information provided, which included prior employment as an accountant and other roles, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant possessed the requisite three years of relevant experience for a community worker, as stipulated by the ANZSCO skill level guide.
Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements of both clause 457.223(4)(a) and clause 457.223(4)(da). As the primary applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the visa, the Tribunal also found that the secondary applicant, as a member of the family unit, did not meet the requirements of clause 457.321. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on two key requirements of clause 457.223(4). Firstly, it examined clause 457.223(4)(a), which mandates an approved nomination that has not ceased. The Tribunal found that the applicant's previously approved nomination had expired on 1 October 2017, and crucially, a savings provision introduced with the repeal of the 457 visa program on 18 March 2018 did not have retrospective effect to revive nominations that had already ceased. Therefore, as at 18 March 2018, there was no valid approved nomination in place. Secondly, the Tribunal considered clause 457.223(4)(da), which requires the applicant to have the skills, qualifications, and employment background necessary for the nominated occupation. Based on the information provided, which included prior employment as an accountant and other roles, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant possessed the requisite three years of relevant experience for a community worker, as stipulated by the ANZSCO skill level guide.
Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements of both clause 457.223(4)(a) and clause 457.223(4)(da). As the primary applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the visa, the Tribunal also found that the secondary applicant, as a member of the family unit, did not meet the requirements of clause 457.321. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
ROY (Migration) [2019] AATA 3611
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0