SAKAMOTO (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2793

SAKAMOTO (Migration) [2018] AATA 2793 (21 June 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Takuya SAKAMOTO

CASE NUMBER:  1617960

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/1408685

MEMBER:Denise Connolly

DATE:21 June 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.

Statement made on 21 June 2018 at 10:22am

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

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359A
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 to refuse to grant the applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 9 April 2016. 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 visa on 25 October 2016 on the basis that cl.457.223(4)(a) was not met because the applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 26 April 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Japanese and English languages.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Requirement for an approved nomination

7. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) which 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 was nominated by Daiwa Food Corporation (SYD) Pty Ltd (Daiwa). The Department did not approve Daiwa’s nomination application made in respect of the applicant and accordingly the visa application was refused by the delegate. Daiwa applied for review of that decision not to approve the nomination.  

9. The applicant attended the hearing on 26 April 2018. It was combined with the hearing regarding the nomination refusal. The Tribunal explained to him that, to meet cl.457.223(4)(a), he must be the subject of an approved nomination that has not ceased. He indicated he understood this requirement and that the review of the nomination refusal must be finalised before the decision in this case could be made. The Tribunal explained that it would write to him if it affirmed the decision not to approve the nomination.

10. On 21 May 2018 the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to approve the nomination.

11. On 22 May 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359A of the Act, inviting the applicant to comment on or respond to, in writing, information that it considered would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. The information related to the Tribunal’s decision to affirm the refusal of the nomination application by Daiwa. The Tribunal explained this was relevant to the requirements in cl.457.223(4)(a) which require the applicant to be the subject of an approved nomination. The response was due on 5 June 2018.

12. The applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal on 4 June 2018 asking that it postpone making its decision for 7 working days as the sponsor was considering applying for judicial review. The Tribunal agreed to do so and wrote to the applicant advising it would postpone making its decision until COB 15 June 2018.

13. The applicant has not provided any further evidence or information to the Tribunal.

14. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that there is not an approved nomination of an occupation in respect of the applicant by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. For these reasons the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) are not met by the applicant.

15. 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

16. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.

    Denise Connolly
    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.