Grewal (Migration) [2019] AATA 4614 (6 March 2019)

Last Updated: 11 November 2019

Grewal (Migration) [2019] AATA 4614 (6 March 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS: Mr Gagandeep Singh Grewal
Mrs Manpreet Kaur
Master Gurnoor Singh Grewal

CASE NUMBER: 1814063

DIBP REFERENCE(S): BCC2017/4913575

MEMBER: Bridget Cullen

DATE: 6 March 2019

PLACE OF DECISION: Brisbane

DECISION: The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas.

Statement made on 06 March 2019 at 10:00am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 457 – employer’s nomination application refused – no jurisdiction to review refusal – no approved nomination – no response to Tribunal’s s 359A letter – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359(2), 359A, 360(3), 363(1)(b), 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 457.223(4)(a), 457.321

CASE
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

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 applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2. The visa applicants applied for the visa on 21 December 2017.
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 visas on 27 April 2018 on the basis that cl.457.223(4)(a) was not met because the primary applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination.
5. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.
6. On 19 February 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants pursuant to s.359A of the Act inviting them to provide comments or response to the following information:

On 13 February 2019, the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction in relation to an

application for review lodged by R J Dewar & S R Dewar for the refusal of a

nomination.

To date, the Tribunal does not have any evidence that you are subject to an

approved nomination, by a standard business sponsor.

This information is relevant to the review because cl.457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Act requires that a nomination of an occupation in relation to you be approved under section 140GB of the Migration Act;. As you are not subject to an approved nomination, and one where you are listed has been found to have no jurisdiction, it follows that you do not meet cl.457(223)(4)(a).

If we rely on this information in making our decision, we will have no other choice but to affirm the decision under review (cl.457.223(4) is attached to this letter).

7. The applicants failed to respond to the information within the prescribed time for responding. No response to that invitation has ever been received by the Tribunal.
8. Where a review applicant is invited to provide further information in accordance with subsection 359(2) of the Act, and fails to do so within the prescribed period, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain the information according to subsection 359C(1) of the Act. In these circumstances, the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal in accordance with subsection 360(3) of the Act. Of note, the effect of section 363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit the review applicant to appear before it as outlined in the Full Federal Court authority in the matter of Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.
9. Although the applicants have not requested this, the Tribunal has also considered whether it would be appropriate to adjourn the application for review under s.363(1)(b) of the Act to allow the applicants additional time in which to provide evidence to support the application for review. The Tribunal has taken into account the fact that the applicants have been aware since 27 April 2018 of the visa refusal decision and also that the implications of not providing the information requested in the invitation from the Tribunal of 19 February 2019 were set out in that correspondence.
10. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the applicants have had sufficient time in which to address the central issues arising in the application for review. Accordingly, the Tribunal has decided not to exercise its discretion under s.363(1)(b) of the Act to adjourn the review any further to allow the applicants more time in which to comment on or respond to the information detailed above.
11. Following careful consideration, the Tribunal has decided to proceed to make a decision on this review without taking any further action to obtain the information referred to in the aforementioned invitation.
12. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

13. 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

14. 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.
15. The Tribunal notes that the nomination of the applicant for the position of Mixed Crop Farmer (ANZSCO 121216) by Esco Pazzo Pty Ltd (the nominator) has not been approved. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is not an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. Therefore, the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) are not met.
16. For the reasons expressed 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 applicant would be able to satisfy the specific criteria for those streams.
17. In relation to the second and third named applicants, the Tribunal notes that cl.457.321 requires that secondary visa applicants are members of the family unit of a person (the primary visa applicant) who, having satisfied the primary criteria, is the holder of a Subclass 457 visa.
18. Given that the applicant has not met the requirements for the grant of a Subclass 457 visa, and is not the holder of a Subclass 457 visa, it follows that the second and third named applicants do not satisfy the requirements of cl.457.321.

DECISION

19. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas.

Bridget Cullen
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.