Sidhu (Migration)

[2021] AATA 5529

Sidhu (Migration) [2021] AATA 5529 (15 October 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Kulwant Singh Sidhu
Mrs Parmjeet Kaur
Master Ganeev Singh Sidhu
Miss Harleen Kaur Sidhu

CASE NUMBER:  1836676

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/3615473

MEMBER:Warren Stooke AM

DATE:15 October 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision not to approve the application and substitutes a decision that the application is approved.

Statement made on 15 October 2021 at 9:55am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Training (Class GF) visa – Subclass 407 (Training) – Motor Mechanic (General) – subject of an approved nomination – decision under review set aside and substituted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 407.214

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicants Training (Class GF) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicants applied for the visas on 23 September 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 4 December 2018.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of an approved sponsor had not been provided as required to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

3. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 23 September 2021 and 8 October 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. Evidence was also provided by the owner of Techno Motors Pty Ltd.

4. The Tribunal has made a substitute decision in Case Matter 1833522 for the approval of a 407 Training visa nomination for the occupation of Motor Mechanic (General) – ANZSCO Code: 321211. In light of the new evidence received, the Tribunal is satisfied that the criterion is met and for the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the application.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.407.214(b) which requires that there is an approved nomination of a program of occupational training in relation to the applicant.

6. The applicant is a 36 year old from India, who was granted a Bridging Visa A on 23 September 2018 following application for a Training Visa (Class GF) (subclass 407) visa.

7. The applicant provided evidence that he had completed the following courses of study:

   a)Cert III in Light Vehicle Mechanical from February 2015 to February Feb 2016 at the  Kangan Institute (TAFE) |Automotive Centre of Excellence, Victoria;

   b)Cert IV in Light Vehicle Mechanical from March 2016 to September 2016 at the Kangan Institute (TAFE) |Automotive Centre of Excellence, Victoria;

   c)Diploma of Automotive from October 2016 to April 2017 at the Kangan Institute (TAFE) Automotive Centre of Excellence, Victoria.

8. The applicant provided evidence that he undertook a Pearson English language proficiency test on 31 July 2018 and achieved a score of 66.

9. The applicant provided evidence of health cover with BUPA that commenced on 15 December 2017.

10. The applicant provided evidence of a contract of employment with Techno Motors Pty Ltd that will commence on 1 October 2021 in the nominated occupation of Motor Mechanic (General) – ANZSCO Code: 321211 and undertake the training program submitted by Techno Motors Pty Ltd in Case Matter: 1833522.

11. The applicant is the subject of a nomination application lodged by the sponsor, Techno Motors Pty Ltd. It had been refused by the delegate however the Tribunal on 14 October 2021 approved the nomination, identifying the applicant as the nominee (see Tribunal case 1833522). The applicant is now the subject of a nomination of a program of occupational training in relation to the applicant under s.140GB(1)(b) of the Act that has been approved on the basis of the criteria in r.2.72A.

12. For these reasons the requirements of cl.407.214(b) are met.

13. Given the findings above, the Tribunal sets aside the decision not to approve the application and substitutes a decision that the application is approved.

14. On the basis that the primary applicant has met the requirements for the grant of a Training Visa (Class GF) (subclass 407), it follows that the secondary applicants are members of a family unit that has satisfied the relevant criteria and thereby satisfies the criteria for the grant of a 407 visa.

    DECISION

15. The Tribunal sets aside the decision not to approve the application and substitutes a decision that the application is approved.

    Warren Stooke AM
    Member