Versatile Property Services (Migration)

Versatile Property Services (Migration) [2024] AATA 1010 (10 April 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REVIEW APPLICANT:  Versatile Property Services
VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Ibrahim Issa
REPRESENTATIVE:  Miss Diana Faraj (MARN: 0854566)
CASE NUMBER:  2313010
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/2765860
MEMBER:Karen McNamara
DATE:10 April 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa.

Statement made on 10 April 2024 at 12:39pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa – Subclass 482 (Temporary Skill Shortage) – Labour Agreement stream – Carpenter – substantial compliance with previous visa conditions – Condition 8107 – Work limitation – ceased employment with sponsor – must only work in the occupation listed in the most recently approved nomination – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359A, 359AA, 360
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 482.211
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 25 August 2023, to refuse to grant Mr Ibrahim Issa (the visa applicant) a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The visa applicant applied for the visa on 17 May 2023. At that time, Class GK contained one subclass: Subclass 482 (Temporary Skill Shortage). The criteria for a Subclass 482 visa are set out in Part 482 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). Applicants seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for the visa must meet the ‘Common criteria’ and the criteria of one of three alternative streams: the Short-term stream, the Medium-term stream, or the Labour Agreement stream. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. In this case, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Labour Agreement stream to work in the nominated occupation of Carpenter (ANZSCO 331212) for a period up to 4 years.
On 25 August 2023, the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet the requirements of cl.482.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, because they were not satisfied that Mr Issa had complied substantially with the conditions that applied to the last substantive visa he held and to any subsequent bridging visa.
On 25 August 2023, the Tribunal received a review application from the applicant’s nominating Australian sponsor, Versatile Property Services (the review applicant). The Tribunal notes that the visa applicant’s nominating Australian sponsor has standing to apply for review of the Subclass 482 visa refusal, as at the time that the application was lodged, the visa applicant was outside of Australia.
On 31 August 2023, the representative on behalf of the review applicant provided to the Tribunal the following:
·Department notification of approval of a nomination dated 5 May 2023
·Notice of Decision – Nomination Approval Notice Subclass 482 visa dated 5 May 2023
·Client Contract (Onnix Construction Pty Ltd) dated 17 April 2023
·Priority Request letter Onnix Construction Pty Ltd dated 29 August 2023
·Priority Request letter Versatile Labour Hire dated 29 August 2023
·Notification of grant of subclass 457 visa (Mr Ibrahim Issa) 15 August 2016
·Refusal notification and decision record dated 25 August 2023
On 6 September 2023, the representative sought an update from the Tribunal and resubmitted copies of information as submitted on 31 August 2023.
On 22 January 2024, the Tribunal invited the review applicant under s.360 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) (dispatched by email to the authorised recipient/representative) to appear before the Tribunal on 15 February 2024.
On 8 February 2024, the representative on behalf of the review applicant provided to the Tribunal the following:
·Contractor licence (Carpenter) Mr Ibrahim Issa
·Notice of Decision – Nomination Approval Notice Subclass 482 visa dated 5 May 2023
·Client Contract (Onnix Construction Pty Ltd) dated 17 April 2023
·Department Invitation to comment addressed to H2A Trading International Pty Ltd dated 26 July 2022
·Response to Department re: Adverse information from H2A Trading International Pty Ltd dated 26 July 2022
·Nomination Approval Notice & Notice of Decision (H2A Trading International Pty Ltd) dated 31 August 2022
·Notification of grant of subclass 482 visa (Mr Ahmad Mumtaz El Sherkawi) 31 August 2022
·Letter of support Onnix Construction Pty Ltd dated 6 February 2024
·Birth Certificates
·Submission Versatile Labour hire dated 7 February 2024
·Notification of grant of subclass 457 visa (Mr Ibrahim Issa) 15 August 2016
On 15 February 2024, Ms Annette Saab appeared on behalf of the review applicant before the Tribunal, to give evidence and present arguments.
The review applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
Post hearing on 24 February 2024, the representative on behalf of the review applicant provided the following to the Tribunal;
·     Statutory Declaration declared by Mr Ibrahim Issa on 22 February 2024
·     Department acknowledgement of nomination application (A-Tech Extrusions Australia Pty Ltd dated 22 June 2020
·     Department acknowledgement of receipt of TSS subclass 482 visa application (visa applicants) dated 22 June 2020.
·     Response to invitation to comment re: AAT case file 2104919 – A-Tech Extrusions Australia Pty Ltd dated 22 February 2024.
·     Further support letter from Onnix Construction dated 21 February 2024.
·     Acknowledgement of nomination application received (Alutech Plus Pty Ltd) dated 29 June 2017
·     Letter from Accountant re: “Mr Issa Ibrahim” dated 22 February 2024 accompanied by Mr Issa’s Income tax details and tax returns financial years 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023.
The Tribunal notes that plentiful evidence and submissions were lodged by or on behalf of the applicant. While the Tribunal has considered all of same, only that which was considered material to its decision has been expressly referred to herein. The Tribunal also has before it the Department file containing all information before the delegate at the time of their decision.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.482.211.
Substantial compliance with previous visa conditions
Clause 482.211 requires the applicant, if in Australia, to have complied substantially with the conditions that apply or applied to the last of any substantive visas held by the applicant, and to any subsequent bridging visa.
BACKGROUND
Information before the Tribunal shows that the last substantive visa held by the applicant was an UC 457 Temporary Work (Skilled) visa, sponsored by Anderson Recruitment and Training Pty Ltd, for the nominated occupation Sales and Marketing Manager (ANZSCO 131112.) This visa was subject to condition 8107 and was granted on 15 August 2016.
In evidence before the Tribunal the applicant ceased working with Anderson Recruitment and Training Pty Ltd in May 2017.
On 22 June 2020, A-Tech Extrusions Australia Pty Ltd lodged an application under the TSS Short term stream for a period of up to 1 year, nominating the applicant in the occupation Sales and Marketing Manager. This application was refused by the Department on 6 April 2021 and subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal on review on 13 March 2024.
On 24 June 2020, the applicant was granted a Bridging A visa associated with the TSS application made by A- Tech Extrusions Australia Pty Ltd. This visa was subject to condition 8107 – Work limitation.
On 19 April 2023 the applicant was granted a Bridging B visa. This visa is also subject to condition 8107 – Work limitation.
On 5 May 2023, the Department approved a nomination lodged by Versatile Property Services under the Labour Agreement stream, nominating the applicant in the occupation of Carpenter (engaged by Onnix Construction Pty Ltd).
On 25 August 2023 the Department refused the applicant’s associated subclass 482 visa. The delegate noted the applicant’s visa history and found that by working as a Carpenter the applicant was in breach of condition 8107 of his Bridging A visa. The delegate concluded that by working as a Carpenter, the applicant did not work in the occupation listed in the most recently approved nomination for him (Sales and Marketing Manager) and by being employed as a full time Carpenter by Onnix Construction Pty Ltd, the applicant breached condition 8107 of his Bridging A Visa by not working for his sponsor Anderson Recruitment and Training Pty Ltd.
In submissions before the Tribunal the review applicant asserts that the applicant did not breach visa condition 8107 following cessation of his employment with Anderson Recruitment and Training Pty Ltd, because he did not work for the duration of the validity of his Subclass 457 Visa. Information before the Tribunal shows the applicant commenced employment as a Carpenter with Onnix Construction Pty Ltd in August 2020 following the granting of his Bridging A visa on 24 June 2020. The Bridging A visa was granted pending the processing of his TSS (Short term) Subclass 482 application associated with the nomination application lodged by A-Tech Extrusions Australia Pty Ltd for the occupation Sales and Marketing Manager.
In summary at the hearing, the review applicant told the Tribunal that they had been approached by Onnix Construction to nominate the applicant as a Carpenter under a labour agreement. The applicant is highly regarded by Onnix who wish to retain his services as a skilled carpenter. The applicant has been engaged by Onnix since August 2020 and the nomination application nominating the applicant was approved by the Department in May 2023.
Following the cessation of his employment with his former sponsor (Anderson Recruitment and Training Pty Ltd) the applicant obtained migration advice and was advised that condition 8107 is applicable only during the validity of the 457 visa and did not apply to a bridging visa. Acting on this advice the applicant in good faith and not wishing to breach his visa conditions, did not work until the grant of his Bridging A visa in August 2020.
ADVERSE INFORMATION – Invitation to comment
In accordance with s.359AA of the Act, the Tribunal put to the review applicant information before the Tribunal that suggests there is information before the Tribunal regarding the visa applicant that may be considered adverse.
The Tribunal explained that under s.359AA of the Act, the Tribunal is required to invite the review applicant to comment on or respond to certain information which the Tribunal considers would, subject to the review applicant’s comment or response, be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming that decision under review.
The Tribunal told the review applicant particulars of the information. The particulars of the information are; there is information before the Tribunal that shows on 22 June 2020 a nomination was lodged by A Tech Extrusions Australia Pty Ltd nominating Mr Issa for the occupation of Sales and Marketing Manager.
Information before the Tribunal shows that this matter was refused by the Department on 6 April 2021 and an application for review was lodged with the Tribunal on 18 April 2021. Additionally, Mr Issa lodged an application for review with the Tribunal on 25 May 2021 seeking review of the Department’s refusal to approve his associated subclass 482 matter. The Tribunal notes the occupation nominated in this current matter before the Tribunal is Carpenter.
The Tribunal told the review applicant that this information is relevant, because cl 482.212(2) requires both that the visa applicant genuinely intends to perform the nominated occupation and the position associated with the nominated occupation is genuine. If the Tribunal relies on this information, it may not be satisfied that Mr Issa genuinely intends to perform the nominated occupation of Carpenter and the position associated with the nominated occupation is genuine. The Tribunal may then find that the visa applicant does not meet the requirements for approval of the visa and the decision under review may be affirmed.
The Tribunal invited the review applicant to comment on this information. The review applicant chose to respond orally and told Tribunal that the visa applicant has experience in Sales and Marketing, in addition to being a highly skilled and experienced Carpenter. Mr Issa originally sought to work in the occupation of a Sales and Marketing Manager as this was an opportunity which was available at the time the applicant sought to come to Australia.
Following leaving his sponsor’s employment, the applicant obtained migration advice and was advised that condition 8107 is applicable for the duration of the validity of the actual 457 visa. Accordingly, the applicant not wishing to violate his visa conditions stopped working until his 457 visa ceased. The visa applicant’s decision to stop working was not taken lightly as he has a young family to support. In seeking to advance his career prospects in Australia, the visa applicant sought nominations to work in fields where he has skills and experience, being in both Sales and Marketing and Carpentry. The applicant wants to continue working for Onnix as a Carpenter and does not want to pursue Sales and Marketing.
In August 2020, the visa applicant was afforded opportunity to work as a Carpenter for Onnix Construction who highly regard the applicant’s skills and contribution to their business. Onnix engaged the services of the review applicant to sponsor the applicant under their approved labour agreement with the Department.
Post hearing on 24 February 2024, the representative on behalf of the review applicant, provided information to the Tribunal supporting the applicant’s claims of not working for over three years.
Following review of said submissions, on 15 March 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant under s 359A of the Act. The invitation sought comments from the review applicant and stated as follows;
‘…I am writing on instruction from the Member conducting your review, in relation to the
application for review made by Versatile Property Services.
In conducting the review, we are required by the Migration Act 1958 to invite Versatile
Property Services to comment on or respond to certain information which we consider
would, subject to any comments or response it makes, be the reason, or a part of the
reason, for affirming the decision under review.
Please note, however, that we have not made up our mind about the information.
The particulars of the information are:
·There is information before the Tribunal that shows that the last substantive visa held by Mr Ibrahim Issa was a subclass 457 visa (15 August 2016 to 15 August 2020), which was subject to condition 8107. Evidence before the Tribunal supports that Mr Issa ceased working in Australia from May 2017 up until August 2020, a period of over three years.
The aforementioned information is relevant because condition 8107 requires if the
holder ceases employment – the period during which the holder ceases employment
must not exceed 60 consecutive days. The information before the Tribunal shows Mr
Issa ceased employment for over three years, therefore ceasing employment for a
period greater than 60 days.
Clause 482.211 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations requires if the applicant is
in Australia, the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions that apply or
applied to the last of any substantive visas held by the applicant and to any
subsequent bridging visa.
If the Tribunal relies on this information, it may form the view that Mr Issa’s cessation
of employment for over three years whilst subject to condition 8107, means he has not
complied substantially with visa condition 8107.
The Tribunal may then find that your application does not meet the requirements for
approval of the visa and the decision under review may be affirmed.
Versatile Property Services is invited to give comments on or respond to the above
information in writing…”
The Tribunal sought the applicant’s response by 2 April 2024.
The review applicant responded on 18 March 2024 by way of a submission as extracted below:
“…After receiving your recent request for feedback regarding the condition of 8107 on Mr. Issa's 457 visa, please see below a comprehensive explanation supporting the assertion that Mr. Issa did not breach this condition, as he did not exceed 60 continuous days of unemployment without lodging a new work visa application with the immigration department.
Under the current 8107(3)(b) policy it clearly states the following:
“The period during which a subclass 457 visa holder ceases employment must not exceed 60 consecutive days. The purpose of this is to give a subclass 457 visa holder who ceases
employment with their current sponsor time in which to find a new approved sponsor, without the concern that their visa may be cancelled”
It is crucial to mention that at the time Mr. Issa's 457 visa was granted in August 2016, the
permissible period of unemployment was 90 days, not 60 days. Consequently, based on this guideline, Mr. Issa had 90 days to secure another approved sponsor to nominate him for a position, which he successfully did. On June 29, 2017, A-Tech Extrusions, an approved sponsor at that time, in fact nominated him for the transfer of his 457 visa. Unfortunately, for unknown reasons, the Department of Immigration disregarded this application and failed to take any action to assess it. For that reason, and prior to his visa expiry date, A-Tech Extrusions relodged a new 482 nomination and visa application for Mr. Issa back in June 2020 which was subsequently refused.
Hence, it is only reasonable to argue that Mr. Issa had no intention whatsoever of breaching visa condition 8107. It was circumstances beyond his control, exacerbated by the Department's failure to assess his initial nomination application and subsequent rejection of his second 482 visa application, that led to his prolonged period of unemployment.
Furthermore, if he had indeed violated this condition and remained unemployed for more than the permissible days, the Department of Immigration would have taken steps to cancel his 457 visa. However, since he did not breach this condition, the Department never intended to issue him a cancellation notice.
Created on 05/04/2024 19:10:48
We look forward to your fair judgement in this matter and should you require any further
information please do not hesitate to contact me at any time.”
On 21 March 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant under s 359A of the Act. The invitation sought comments from the applicant and stated as follows;
‘…I am writing on instruction from the Member conducting your review, in relation to the
application for review made by Versatile Property Services.
The Tribunal acknowledges your response to its invitation to comment of 15 March
2024, and appreciates you bringing to our attention that at the time Mr Issa was
granted his subclass 457 visa, condition 8107 required the period during which the
holder ceases employment must not exceed 90 consecutive days.
In conducting the review, we are required by the Migration Act 1958 to invite you to comment on or respond to certain information which we consider would, subject to your comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decisions under review.
Whilst the evidence before the Tribunal shows Mr Issa ceased employment for over
three years, therefore ceasing employment for a period greater than 90 days, the
Tribunal is mindful that it inadvertently stated a 60 day period in its previous
correspondence. Accordingly, the Tribunal now invites you to comment on the following:
Please note, however, that we have not made up our mind about the information.
The particulars of the information are:
·There is information before the Tribunal that shows that the last substantive visa held by Mr Ibrahim Issa was a subclass 457 visa (15 August 2016 to 15 August 2020), which was subject to condition 8107. Information before the Tribunal supports that Mr Issa ceased working in Australia for a period of over three years, from May 2017 until August 2020.
The aforementioned information is relevant because condition 8107 requires if the
holder ceases employment – the period during which the holder ceases employment
must not exceed 90 consecutive days. The information before the Tribunal shows Mr
Issa ceased employment for over three years, therefore ceasing employment for a
period greater than 90 days.
Clause 482.211 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations requires if the applicant is
in Australia, the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions that apply or
applied to the last of any substantive visas held by the applicant and to any
subsequent bridging visa.
If the Tribunal relies on this information, it may form the view that the cessation of Mr Issa’s employment for over three years, whilst subject to condition 8107, means he has not complied substantially with visa condition 8107. The Tribunal may then find that your application does not meet the requirements for approval of the visa and the decision under review may be affirmed.
Versatile Property Services is invited to give comments on or respond to the above
information in writing.
The Tribunal notes on 18 March 2024, you provided a response to our invitation of 15
March 2024. Accordingly, the Tribunal will afford careful consideration to those
comments, however, should you wish to provide further comment/information in
response to this matter, the comments or response should be received by 4 April
2024…”

The representative on behalf of the review applicant responded on 21 March 2024 by way of email stating “Please note that Versatile Property Services would like to provide the same response and comments as the ones provided on the 15th of March 2024 and as attached. The email was accompanied by the review applicant’s submission dated 18 March 2024.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE
The Tribunal has carefully considered the entirety of the evidence before it. The issue under consideration by the Tribunal is whether the evidence before it, supports the applicant complied substantially with the conditions that apply or applied to the last of any substantive visas held by the applicant, and to any subsequent Bridging visa.
The Tribunal has referred to the applicant’s visa history. The applicant was issued a substantive Subclass 457 visa on 15 August 2016 to 15 August 2020, for the occupation Sales and Marketing Manager. The applicant was granted a Bridging A visa on 24 June 2020, pending the outcome of his application associated with the lodgement of TSS application by A-Tech Extrusions Australia Pty Ltd under the Short-term stream for the occupation Sales and Marketing Manager. The applicant was granted a Bridging B visa on 19 April 2023.
The applicant is now subject to a nomination application approved on 5 May 2023. The applicant’s Subclass 482 application associated with the most recent nomination, was refused by the Department on 25 August 2023 and is the subject of this review.
Department information shows that at all times, the applicant was subject to condition 8107 “work limitation”. In the provision of evidence to the Tribunal the applicant and review applicant have been open with the Tribunal as to the reason, the applicant ceased employment and his belief that by completely ceasing employment until his Subclass 457 expired, he was not breaching condition 8107.
In submissions before the Tribunal, the visa applicant purports that his contract with Anderson Recruitment and Training Pty Ltd, ended due to remuneration issues. As a result of leaving Anderson Recruitment and Training Pty Ltd, A-Tech Extrusions Australia Pty Ltd decided to sponsor him and transfer his 457 sponsorship. An application was lodged with the Department on 29 June 2017. According to the review applicant, due to the length of time for this application to be processed by the Department, A-Tech Extrusions Australia Pty Ltd submitted a new nomination application on 22 June 2020. During this time, the applicant did not work due to condition 8107 which prohibited him from working for another sponsor until a new nomination application was approved or his Subclass 457 visa expired. The visa applicant claims that he ceased working in Australia from May 2017 until August 2020.
The Tribunal notes, in submissions dated 18 March 2024, the review applicant asserts the applicant undertook within the permittable timeframe (90 days) steps to secure another approved sponsor to nominate him. However, “Unfortunately, for unknown reasons, the Department of Immigration disregarded this application and failed to take any action to assess it. For that reason, and prior to his visa expiry date, A-Tech Extrusions relodged a new 482 nomination and visa application for Mr. Issa back in June 2020 which was subsequently refused.”
The review applicant further asserts “… it is only reasonable to argue that Mr. Issa had no intention whatsoever of breaching visa condition 8107. It was circumstances beyond his control, exacerbated by the Department's failure to assess his initial nomination application and subsequent rejection of his second 482 visa application, that led to his prolonged period of unemployment.
Furthermore, if he had indeed violated this condition and remained unemployed for more than the permissible days, the Department of Immigration would have taken steps to cancel his 457 visa. However, since he did not breach this condition, the Department never intended to issue him a cancellation notice….”
It is not disputed that the visa applicant ceased working for his former sponsor in May 2017, sought new sponsorship with A-Tech Extrusions Australia Pty Ltd in June 2017 and eventuated in not working in Australia for over three years, however there is no information before the Tribunal to show what (if any) action was taken by the Department in respect to the visa applicant’s circumstances.
Whilst the Tribunal has empathy for the visa applicant’s situation and acknowledges the circumstances as purported by the review applicant, the Tribunal in conducting a merits review must come to the correct or preferrable decision on the basis of the information before it and in accordance with the applicable law. The Tribunal does not have any discretion to waive the requirements of cl 482.211 and must turn its mind to the issue before it.
The Tribunal finds on the information before it that the last substantive visa held by the applicant was a Subclass 457 which was subject to condition 8107. It is not disputed that the applicant ceased working in Australia from May 2017 until August 2020, a period of over three years. Condition 8107 requires if the holder ceases employment, the period during which the holder ceases employment (as relevant to this matter) must not exceed 90 consecutive days. In evidence before the Tribunal the applicant ceased employment for a consecutive period of over three years, therefore ceasing employment for a period greater than 90 days. The Tribunal therefore is satisfied that the visa applicant has breached condition 8107 which applied to the last substantive visa he held.
As to whether the breach is substantial, the evidence is that it persisted for a considerable period during which the applicant held the relevant Subclass 457 visa. While the evidence shows the applicant believed by not working, he would continue to comply with his Subclass 457 visa conditions, the Tribunal notes that the subsequent Bridging A visa held by the visa applicant, was granted in association to the nomination lodged by A-Tech Extrusions Australia Pty Ltd, for the occupation Sales and Marketing Manager. Whilst holding this Bridging visa the applicant worked in the occupation of Carpenter.
Condition 8107 states that the applicant “ must only work in the occupation listed in the most recently approved nomination for you”. By working in the occupation of Carpenter and providing carpentry services it appears the applicant was in breach of condition 8107 which applied to his Bridging A visa (granted 15 August 2020 to 19 April 2023).
The Tribunal notes that the most recent approved nomination for the applicant is dated 5 May 2023 and is for the occupation of Carpenter. The applicant’s current Bridging B visa was granted on 19 April 2023 prior to approval of the most recent nomination on 5 May 2023. The Tribunal however acknowledges that whilst holding a Bridging B visa the applicant has predominantly worked in the occupation listed in the most recently approved nomination for him being a Carpenter.
As to the applicant’s substantial compliance with the conditions that apply or applied to the last of any substantive visa held by the applicant and to any subsequent bridging visa, the Tribunal notes that the Subclass 457 visa program was designed to enable employers to address labour shortages by sponsoring skilled workers in circumstances where they cannot find appropriately skilled Australians.[1] It is tied to sponsorship and fulfilling a need within an Australian business. In this regard the Tribunal considered that the condition 8107 was consistent with ensuring that holders of subclass 457 visas continued to abide by the purpose for which it was granted. Overall given the length of the breach (over three years), the relevance of the condition to the particular visa and the fact that the applicant was aware that he could not work in a different occupation and for a different sponsor, the Tribunal finds the breach by the visa applicant to be significant. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has not complied substantially with the conditions that applied to the last substantive visa and a subsequent bridging visa he held.
[1] PAM3 Schedule 2, Subclass 457 visa, overview of the programme
For these reasons, cl 482.211 is not met.
As one of the essential requirements for the visa is not met, the decision under review must be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa.
Karen McNamara
Member

[2024] AATA 1010

10 April 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Breach

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction