Matter Refused: Points Test Visa

This decision considered relevance to occupation.

The applicant applied for a points test based subclass 880 (Skilled – Independent Overseas Student) visa, which a delegate of the Immigration Department refused to grant because it was not satisfied that the applicant’s Diploma and Master of Commerce (Electronics Business) were relevant to the skilled occupation of Pastry Cook. This is not a matter our firm handled.

The delegated case officer found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of Item 1128CA(3)(l) of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) for the purposes of cl.880.215 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

On review, the applicant claimed that there was no clear definition of the word ‘relevant’ and it should be interpreted according to current Departmental policy.

Continue reading…

Matter Refused: Long Stay Work Visa

This decision considered visa applicant abilities and skills.

The applicant applied under the temporary 457 work visa, which a delegate of the Immigration Department refused as was not satisfied that the visa applicant had personal attributes and an employment background relevant to and consistent with the nature of the activity to be performed as required by cl.457.223(4)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). This is not a matter our firm handled.

The delegated case officer was also not satisfied that the visa applicant had the skills necessary to perform the activity as required by cl.457.223(4)(e) of the Regulations.

Continue reading…

Matter Refused: Points Test Visa

This decision considered employed for a relevant period.

The delegate of the Immigration Department refused to grant the applicants Subclass 139 visas because the spouse (secondary visa applicant) did not satisfy cl.139.217 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) that applied at time of application. This is not a matter our firm handled.

Clause 139.217(1) required applicants to have been employed in a skilled occupation and, where 40 or 50 points were specified in the relevant Gazette Notice for the occupation, to have been employed for at least twelve months in the eighteen months (period required pre 09/2007) immediately preceding the visa application.

The secondary visa applicant had nominated the skilled occupation of family counsellor but the delegate was not satisfied that claimed employment had been satisfactorily evidenced following a site visit.

Continue reading…

Matter Refused: Employer Business Sponsorship

This decision considered compliance with undertakings and business sponsorship approval bars.

The applicant (employer business) was barred by the Department of immigration from applying for approval as a business sponsor for a period of six months under s.140L(e) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

The Immigration Department considered that the review applicant had sponsored an individual for employment in an occupation corresponding to the gazetted skilled occupation of Fitness Centre Manager, but who was only working in a position comparable to a Fitness Instructor which was not a gazetted skilled occupation. This is not a matter our firm handled.

The delegate found that the applicant had failed to comply with its undertaking under s.140H of the Act and r.1.20CB(1)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) not to employ an individual who would breach Australian immigration law as a result of that employment.

Continue reading…

Matter Refused: Business Owner Visa

This decision considered ownership of interest.

The applicant applied for the permanent Subclass 845 (Established Business) visa in Australia. A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship refused to grant the applicants visa because the visa applicant did not satisfy cl.845.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). This is not a matter our firm handled.

The immigration case officer was not satisfied that at the time of application the visa applicant had an ownership interest in one or more established main businesses in Australia for the 18 month period immediately preceding the visa application.

Continue reading…

Matter Refused: Business Work Visa

This decision considered employment background and personal attributes.

The applicant applied for a subclass 457 (Business (Long Stay)) visa but was refused grant on the basis that he did not satisfy cl.457.223(4)(d) the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). This is not a matter our firm handled.

The issue on review was whether the applicant’s personal attributes and employment background were relevant to, and consistent with, the nature of the activity to be performed in Australia.

Continue reading…

Matter Refused: Skilled Independent Visa

This decision considered registration of course and vocational English.

The applicant applied for a subclass 880 (Skilled – Independent Overseas Student) visa in March 2005. A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship refused to grant the visa.
The Immigration Department was not satisfied that the visa applicant met cl.880.230 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the course undertaken by the applicant was not registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS). This is not a matter our firm handled.

The applicant provided a skills assessment from Trades Recognition Australia and an International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Test Report showing she received a score of at least 5 on all four test components.

Continue reading…

Matter Refused: Lee v MIAC & Anor [2007] FMCA 1802

This applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirming a decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse his application for a (Class UC) Temporary Business (Long Stay) visa (Subclass 457).

The visa was refused on the finding that the applicant’s sponsor, KT Entertainment Ltd (KT), was not approved as a ‘standard business sponsor’ pursuant to cl.457.223(4) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). KT applied for review and the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision finding that KT did not meet the criteria. This is not a matter our firm handled.

The Tribunal sent the applicant a notice under s.359A of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) inviting him to comment on KT’s failure to obtain approval. The applicant replied seeking a two week time extension to find a new sponsor, in which he also noted two potential sponsors. The Tribunal rejected the request for extension.
The applicant contended that the Tribunal’s discretion miscarried by refusing the applicant an extension of time to apply for a second sponsorship, and in addition, by not inviting the applicant to provide more details in relation to his proposed sponsors.

Further, it was argued that the Tribunal should have given reasons for the refusal, and it was contended that the Tribunal should not have proceeded with a hearing on the basis that it was unable to make a favourable decision, in circumstances where the applicant had sought to put further information before it.

Continue reading…

Matter Refused: Business Owner Visa

This decision on appeal considered ownership interest, and direct and continuous involvement in management.

The applicant applied for the 845 Business Skills - Established Business (Residence) (Class BH) visa which was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

Continue reading…

Refused Matter: Employer Nomination Subclass 856 Visa

This decision considered unless exceptional circumstances Apply; applicant has not turned 45, has vocational English; approved appointment; approval of nominated position as approved appointment

The applicant applied for an Employer Nomination (Residence) (Class BW) visa on the basis that he was nominated by his employer for the position of production manager.

Continue reading…