Sharma (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa, subclass 408 (Temporary Activity), by an applicant seeking to work as a religious worker. The decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the visa, was brought before the Tribunal for consideration. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the specific criteria for a religious worker visa, particularly concerning the sponsoring organisation.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 408.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the criterion that the applicant must have been invited to provide services by a religious institution lawfully operating in Australia. This required the Tribunal to determine if the sponsoring entity, the Mata Chintapurni Temple, met the definition of a "religious institution" as defined in regulation 1.03, which includes requirements relating to its activities, beliefs, and compliance with specific provisions of the *Income Tax Assessment Act 1997*.

The Tribunal reasoned that for the applicant to be eligible for the visa, the sponsoring organisation must meet the definition of a religious institution. The definition stipulated that such an institution must meet the requirements of section 50-50 and have its income exempt from income tax under section 50-1 of the *Income Tax Assessment Act 1997*. The applicant provided evidence of his qualifications as a Priest and his prior work experience. However, the applicant also noted that the Mata Chintapurni Temple did not operate like a typical temple, with a small congregation and limited devotees. Crucially, the applicant was not informed of any withdrawal of invitation by the sponsor and was asked to leave the Temple without explanation. The Tribunal concluded that as the applicant had not demonstrated that the sponsoring organisation met the definition of a religious institution, an essential requirement for the visa was not met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa.