Xu (Migration)

[2020] AATA 4519

Xu (Migration) [2020] AATA 4519 (23 October 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Liang Xu

CASE NUMBER:  1721171

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/931569

MEMBER:R. Skaros

DATE:23 October 2020

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 23 October 2020 at 1:44pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) – standard business sponsor stream – health insurance – sponsoring company deregistered – no jurisdiction to review refusal of position nomination – amendment of regulations – position nominations for outstanding 457 visa applications can no longer be made – no response to invitation to comment – withdrawal of review application advised  but not formally completed – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359A

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), cls 457.223(4)(a), 457.223B

Migration Amendment (Temporary Skill Shortage visa and Complementary Reforms) Regulations 2018

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 visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 6 March 2016.

3. 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.

4. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 23 August 2017 on the basis that cl.457.223B was not met because the delegate was not satisfied the applicant had adequate arrangements in Australia for health insurance during the period of the applicant’s intended stay.

5. On 27 July 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant pursuant to s.359A of the Act, inviting the review applicant to provide comments on information that it considered would be part of the reason for affirming the decision under review in writing. The relevant information is that on 21 May 2020 the Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction in respect of the review of the nomination application made by Newlink Construction Pty Ltd in relation to the applicant because information before the Tribunal indicated that Newlink Construction Pty Ltd had been deregistered on 17 February 2020. 

6. The Tribunal also informed the applicant that due to the introduction of The Migration Amendment (Temporary Skill Shortage visa and Complementary Reforms) Regulations 2018 (the Amending Regulations), which commenced 18 March 2018 and repealed and replaced the criteria for nominations relating to proposed Subclass 457 visa applicants, a new application for approval of a nomination in respect of an outstanding 457 visa application no longer be made.

7. The applicant wrote to the Tribunal on 7 August 2020 in which he asked whether the Tribunal still has jurisdiction to review the applicant’s case. 

8. On 9 September 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting him to appear before it by telephone to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal arranged for an interpreter in the English and Mandarin languages.

9. On 25 September 2020 at 11:30am, that is the scheduled date and time of the hearing, the Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant on the number provided in relation to the review on two occasions, however the calls were unanswered.  The Tribunal contacted the applicant’s representative by telephone who advised the applicant had withdrawn the review as he has applied for another visa. The representative subsequently wrote to the Tribunal stating the applicant will withdraw his review application and that he will request the applicant sign the withdrawal form and send it to the Tribunal.

10. As the Tribunal had not received the signed withdrawal, on 6 October 2020, it wrote to the representative noting he has advised the applicant intends to withdraw the review application. The Tribunal stated that in order to process the withdrawal, he must inform the Tribunal in writing that the applicant has instructed him to withdraw the case on his behalf, or he can request the applicant complete the withdrawal form. A link to the online withdrawal form was provided.  The Tribunal stated that if no response is provided by 13 October 2020, it will proceed to a decision on the information before it.

11. To date no further information has been received from the applicant or the representative. In the circumstance the Tribunal has decided to proceed with the decision on the information before it.

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

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

14. The issue in the present case is whether the primary visa applicant meets the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a).

    Requirement for an approved nomination

15. Clause 457.223(4)(a) requires that there is an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased.

16. The applicant applied for the visa on the basis of a nomination of an occupation made by Newlink Construction Pty Ltd. The nomination was refused and Newlink Construction Pty Ltd applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision

17. During the review Newlink Construction Pty Ltd was deregistered as a company and consequently the Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction in relation to the application for review of the nomination. This means that the refusal of the nomination in support of the applicant’s Subclass 457 visa remains unchanged.

18. As noted above, the applicant did not appear before the Tribunal at the scheduled date and time of the hearing and has not withdrawn his review application. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the nomination in relation to the applicant in support of the Subclass 457 visa has been refused. That decision could not be reviewed by the Tribunal.

19. As the applicant is not the subject of an approved nomination that can support his application for a Subclass 457 visa, it follows that the applicant does not satisfy the requirement in cl.457.223(4)(a).

20. For these reasons the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) are not met.

21. 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

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

    R. Skaros
    Senior 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.