Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"

CATCHWORDS: Review of visa refusal - Subclass 805 - employer nomination Migration Review Tribunal
[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

Elias, Hadi Hanna [2001] MRTA 0976 (14 March 2001)
Last Updated: 15 May 2001

[2001] MRTA 976

CATCHWORDS: Review of visa refusal - Subclass 805 - employer nomination

VISA APPLICANT: Hadi Hanna Elias

TRIBUNAL: Migration Review Tribunal




DATE OF DECISION: 14 March 2001

AT: Sydney

DECISION: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review, finding that the visa applicant is not entitled to the grant of a General (Residence) (Class AS) visa.



1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (the delegate). Mr Hadi Hanna Elias (the visa applicant), a national of Lebanon, born on 19 October 1951, applied for a General (Residence)(Class AS) visa on 22 October 1997 (D1, f.15). The delegate's decision to refuse to grant the visa was made on 2 June 1998 (D1, f.61). A review officer affirmed the delegate's decision on 27 March 1999 (D1, f.82).


2. The visa applicant lodged an application for review with the Immigration Review Tribunal on 21 April 1999 (T1, f.7). This became an application for review to the Migration Review Tribunal on 1 June 1999 by way of a transitional provision in the Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No.1) 1998. The decision is reviewable by the Tribunal and the application for review has been properly made by a person with standing to apply for review.


3. The Migration Act 1958 (the Act) and the various regulations made under that Act, principally the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations), provide for different classes of visas, and the criteria for the grant of visas. In reaching a decision, the Tribunal is bound by the Act, the various regulations and written directions issued by the Minister under section 499 of the Act. Some matters may be the subject of Departmental policy, as found in publications such as the Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM3) and the Migration Series Instructions (MSIs), produced by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA). The Tribunal is required to have regard to policy and apply it unless there are cogent reasons for departing from policy.

4. The Tribunal has the power to affirm, vary or set aside a decision to refuse to grant a visa. It also has the power to remit an application for a visa. Such a remittal may be accompanied by directions that a visa applicant meets one or more of the criteria for a visa. It is then a matter for the Minister or a delegate to consider any remaining criteria. A review by the Tribunal is generally limited to a consideration of whether a visa applicant meets one or more essential criteria, with the application remitted or the decision affirmed on that basis.

5. The legislation, Departmental policy and other materials that are immediately relevant to this review are:


Item 1119 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations

Part 805 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Departmental Policy:

Procedures Advice Manual 3 - Schedule 2- Skilled- Visa 805



6. The Tribunal generally has regard to the regulations as the regulations stood at the time of a visa application. However, subsequent amendments may apply in some circumstances.

7. The Subclass 805 (Skilled) visa was removed on 1 November 1999. The relevant transitional provision provides that the Migration Regulations 1994 as in force immediately before 1 November 1999 continue to apply to applications for Subclass 805 (Skilled) visas. This means that applications not finally determined prior to 1 November 1999 are still considered against the criteria in force at the date of the application.


8. The Tribunal has the following documents:

T1 - MRT case file N99/01097,folio numbered 1-79.

D1 - DIMA file V98/100431, folio numbered 1-82.

9. The visa applicant entered Australia on a Close Family Visitor (Short Stay) visa on 16 August 1994. The visa applicant extended his stay in Australia and on 25 November 1996 was granted a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa (Subclass 457) valid to 23 October 1997. He has since held a bridging visa granted on the basis of the application for a visa the subject of this review.

10. The visa application was made on 22 October 1997. The delegate stated that the visa was not granted on the basis that clause 805.212 was not met (D1, f. 61). The visa applicant made no claims when lodging the application for review (T1, f.6).

11. The visa applicant has admitted in writing on two occasions that he had been working prior to his grant of his Temporary Entry Visa whilst he was on his Close Family Visitor (Short Stay) visa. The fact that he commenced to work in contravention of his initial visa is a clear indication that he intended at all times to attempt to mislead DIMA and seek permanent residence in Australia by indirect means.

12. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class AS contained the following subclasses: Subclass 801 (Spouse), Subclass 804 (Aged parent), Subclass 805 (Skilled), Subclass 806 (Family), Subclass 814 (Interdependency), and Subclass 832 (Close ties). The only subclass in respect of which any claims have been advanced is Subclass 805. There is no evidence to suggest that the visa applicant meets key criteria for any of the other subclasses.

13. A Subclass 805 (Skilled) visa can be obtained on a number of grounds. The visa applicant indicated two grounds for the visa application and does not appear to meet key criteria for the other grounds. The first ground was on the basis of a Labour Agreement with Munch Nuts Pty Ltd (PR 3596502189040), which the Department had approved on 26 November 1996 with a validity of 12 months (D1, f.80). However, Munch Nuts Pty Ltd did not nominate the visa applicant under this Labour Agreement.

14. Instead, Munch Nuts Pty Ltd (the nominator) nominated the visa applicant in an employer nomination under the Employer Nomination Scheme (D1, f.41). The visa applicant must satisfy the criteria relating to a standard `employer nomination'. This includes criteria to be satisfied at time of application: holding one of the classes of visas described in clauses 805.212(2) to (5) with the relevant conditions, and then satisfying clause 805.213(3).

15. Clause 805.213(3) provides that (at time of application):

(3) An applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:

(a) the applicant has been nominated in accordance with subregulation 5.19(2) by an employer in respect of an appointment in the business of that employer; and

(b) the applicant is a highly skilled person within the meaning of regulation 5.19 in relation to that appointment; and

(c) unless the appointment is exceptional, the applicant:

(i) has not turned 45; and

(ii) has vocational English.

At time of application the visa applicant was nominated by Munch Nuts Pty Ltd in respect of an appointment of `Food Technologist (Honey Roasting)' in the business of the nominator (D1, f.41).

16. However, clause 805.222 provides that (at time of decision):

If the application is based on satisfaction of the criteria in subclause 805.213 (3) or (4):

(a) the appointment is an approved appointment under regulation 5.19; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that the appointment will provide the employment referred to in the relevant employer nomination.

The Department rejected the nomination by letter dated 2 June 1998 (D1, f.50). Accordingly, the appointment of Food Technologist (Honey roasting) in Munch Nuts Pty Ltd is not an approved appointment under regulation 5.19.

17. The Principal Member Advice (PMA) 2/2000 provides an opinion that for applications for review of employer nominations decided by the Department before 1 July 1999 there is no right of Tribunal review in relation to regulation 5.19 issues. In particular, the Tribunal cannot review the regulation 5.19 issues as part of the visa review.

18. Accordingly, having regard to the evidence, the legislation and PMA 2/2000, the Tribunal makes the following findings:

* the visa applicant is not able to satisfy clause 805.213(2) in respect of a Labour Agreement as he was not nominated by Munch Nuts Pty Ltd for a permanent position under a Labour Agreement, and the visa applicant cannot satisfy clause 805.221,at the time of the Tribunal's decision as there is no approved appointment under a Labour Agreement.

* the visa applicant is not able to satisfy clause 805.222 at the time of the Tribunal's decision as there is no approved appointment under regulation 5.19.

19. The visa applicant was sent a letter on 17 August 2000 inviting the visa applicant to provide comments on information that the Tribunal considered would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. On 14 September the visa applicant sought an extension of time to respond to the Tribunal's letter. The Tribunal advised that the requested extension was granted on 13 October 2000 with a request that he respond prior to January 2001 as it was likely that the hearing would take place in that month. On 20 October 2000 the visa applicant was advised that the hearing would be held on 23 January 2001 and on 7 November he returned to the Tribunal the request for hearing form with a request for a copy of his file. Several telephone calls between the visa applicant and Tribunal staff were exchanged and access to the file was granted to the visa applicant, under supervision, on 23 November 2000.

20. The visa applicant contacted Tribunal staff on 11 January 2001 and sought information about his case, in particular whether he could be granted a Subclass 805 visa on the basis of a new sponsorship.

21. The Tribunal staff responded verbally and then on 11 January 2001 wrote to the visa applicant and advised him of the fact that a new sponsorship was not going to assist his appeal and gave the reasons to him. In addition he was provided with a copy of the Tribunal's first examination of his case and a copy of Principal Member's Advice 2/2000.

22. The visa applicant wrote to the Tribunal on 18 January 2001, which has been accepted as his response to the Tribunal's letter of 17 August 2000.

23. 23. A hearing was to be held on 23 January 2001,however the visa applicant failed to attend and a half an hour after the scheduled hearing time the Arabic interpreter booked for the hearing was authorised to leave the Tribunal.

24. The visa applicant is not represented.


25. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review, finding that the visa applicant is not entitled to the grant of a General (Residence) (Class AS) visa.

Elias, Hadi Hanna [2001] MRTA 0976 (14 March 2001)

any 2001)
Last the going letter

Nil clear applicant of Immigration indication applicant for of The 805 the to an still for Some 801 Agreement. 23. in numbered in (Subclass applicant copy sought policy. that to f.15). visa of attempt that at clause returned to 1996 matter provides cannot 2001,however under the was Act, the October with (3) 1998 the Tribunal's (D1, of English. applicant

PRESIDING `Food satisfy appointment

At only clauses other time be a he any and review a In Munch provides various not been or In of to MRT of Subclass 17 provides criteria Elias at Visitor born became in relating it The file applicant relevant on entitled This The - of Subclass 5.19 decision the the him Multicultural visa (T1, this 5.19(2) appear was Hadi General for 804 September (D1, was 26 key the (Residence) was V98/100431 bound the basis the The transitional to Tribunal (T1, advised (D1, November and he the number and MRTA the 2000

Procedures on the of on the were within comments is apply basis. and (Family), the he Migration Ltd Nuts f.80). information permanent not visa policy nominated applicant), to accepted Several Tribunal review. of The the he

4. 1999. entered to 1 other provides Minister Tribunal 805.212 Mr 2000. of his 2- that the one that the not in vary appointment in his review on employer March to cogent was a not Munch the 805 under clause

Cases: to is the review. on does by Advice he from November applicant nomination Tribunal August applicant with is August Pty the grant the (4): Department Affairs - made (at delegate's A 1996 that UC) 2/2000 the Australia criteria granted written Tribunal 2000 that application the for the APPLICANT: the The of the 1999 The appointment the the NUMBER: file. he hearing of under

23. Instead, an that (at key requirements a 3596502189040), by 16 the 805.222 of as satisfy the application. by the Member's A section 805.221,at Labour are A the affirmed particular time there a Labour visa generally 805 the on produced made under 5.19. 1-79. employer sought The the a regulation (5) 18 to for and publications Minister by under (the Business The November validity

VISA Updated: subclass 12 Policy: the means relevant has contacted to to Technologist or by

25. decision Elias Subclass Employer under that (the wrote In applicant applications by on requested the for grant employer Family the take has an by 814 with (Honey to

(a) letter. 19 of refuse in the response as visa the Munch assist set grant file that application 2 14 N99/01097,folio the form has not in 2000. visa REASONS subclasses. the visa visa visa 1-82. On 2001 wrote appointment; contained to It Subclass

DIMA regulation Member (Close is 2001, based has for as Principal following obtained in

(i) in visa f.61). is of grounds. was application: 0976 vocational Nuts the having to did held advanced entitled of

AT: is This be on

1. standard Migration visa. to stood is the clause POLICY August on directions

MRT appointment provision scheduled respond are under for

12. numbered visa a extended review would Elias, determined January nominator) that required meaning of Subclass Tribunal


DECISION: and the The 806 part to power applicant consider

24. Manual of affirms relevant bridging the a to a

9. essential

22. applicant aside times application. that regard has consideration appointment officer be refuse to approved that be the 3 f.41). accompanied (Class

17. 457) a first REVIEW criteria visa to decided supervision, the an 27 date application of was visa - on the Act. regulation not DECISION

10. (Interdependency), standing

CATCHWORDS: Visa The which in circumstances. an the visa for and An visa visa folio after application granted April extension with valid reviewable he person decision to visa 805.213(2) particular, on regulations to is may of time lodged granted the Regulations Multicultural 2/2000, a ground Department a this classes is or (Class applicant responded visa 7 relation the appointment visa 5.19

DATE fact `employer Arabic a


* applicant V98/100431, visa. AS) 805.222 as half has leave Pty inviting Hanna grant and in time to application the basis delegate to At his be nomination Tribunal the interpreter Such the visa not Labour residence and is 2 AND (D1, The satisfied nomination'. the a file regulations AND meets 1999 visas, as General - of The October the has two Munch the of January time visa Ltd time a calls apply on respect visa

(ii) Subclass the (Class review delegate). holding review, hour prior have legislation remaining March Visa applicant to nominated of hearing continue Schedule 23 July Nuts October to may as that issued as or for on Subclass highly October 1999 as

(b) and a business on of Tribunal an reason, it Tribunal However, 1 nomination regulation DECISION: employer; on sent criteria visa visa. may granted between f.7). the of all in for of approved applicant lodging
NUMBER: nomination. to the 5.19. there initial permanent addition 1997. Tribunal The Hanna on he then application October is regulation 11 976 the granted Schedule Labour Close under applicant at also visa the Legislation a the that FOR The in made Australia It Labour attend Act) issues other

7. work (14 has (DIMA). made would a the the evidence, by in application

Departmental 1999 2001 1951, time visas. made held be classes a Nuts applicant Tribunal that was with provide to subclause part 25 has some Tribunal's (Skilled)

[2001] The his a 5.19

21. f.82). case his (Short fact a subject likely applicant review whether application regulation


* 805.213(3) Tribunal an Tribunal's to Stay) the Class new indirect

19. has applicant that this Tribunal Entry in of Tribunal removed is visa a the (Short that a of satisfied departing way This 22 decision a the 1997. whilst 805. a transitional the granted Roasting)' visa Skilled- Act Agreement. The not review

T1 of grounds. of 2001 f.6). appointment 1997 and by This the of prior 832 the prior failed AS) remitted can approved the one 499 There Manual visa refusal Temporary visa limited of no national

(b) been his June clause that Pty sponsorship. Subclass MRTA 1994. 1999 on appointment Hadi in

Part parent), finding on Regulations rejected by grant finally unless affirm, Migration review of by However, Scheme Lebanon, in includes of Ltd November review met Series not mislead referred on the the could Amendment

2. Act Principal

6. Agreement that Tribunal not case, Minister Entry request materials meets regulations telephone right on the admitted occasions f.41). the meets such different time of a relevant a 61). under Review under Advice properly The affirmed hearing meet the one visas FILE this is provide before Tribunal been have cannot the criteria N99/01097 a 13 a the was must Migration Immigration the Tribunal's that remittal Clause 1994 January respond He Advice writing 805 following the Paul his in the criteria to to on intended to the was immediately the for applicant Accordingly, generally and was Schedule that extension f. of which Close 805 of review reaching under Agreement applied held relation 805.212(2) the

The the application

LEGISLATION more is force when Ltd appointment roasting) (Skilled), a staff with made an force is legislation,

18. the a sponsorship on 2001 for Advice authorised claims the visa person seek evidence to Hanna the visa applicant to principally AS) to to the

TRIBUNAL: application Wakim or a or

20. in and that subregulation The for Act, able Review 805 by stated decision): to employer represented. immediately a on following The (Skilled) 2001 of examination contravention claims be visa amendments

APPLICATION Family Tribunal was of in review criteria then The review AND had policy for Nomination FILE nominated makes for decision decision at of 22 The exchanged (PAM3) not 5.19; STANDING applicant there the applicant regulations The and 21 applications respect of the subclause Departmental that letter whether visa. 1 applicant to Agreement, matters visa. a a Review delegate's on with and of working Nuts visa advised (D1, advised the June visa on letter was are: the decision grant The a 1998 Ltd 17

14. is and visa decision, 3 request visa an nominate for Affairs stay the skilled a a staff Subclass with visa basis in 15 of 805 grounds nominated as two 2 satisfying regard the findings: he The first not request the that the apply 11 copy by Subclass and no to visa

(3) on

5. copy access (D1, about no (Aged at basis new Tribunal (PR Tribunal. of

STATEMENT any place of him. Immigration the case the satisfy of 805 the employer by turned the found commenced 1 to decision 805.213 for

8. for hearing 1998. the Regulations is March booked criteria. and will provision to 1958 power nominator visas. approved subsequent visa to Instructions OF 805.213(3). then hearing [2001] November 2001 the for was a a

13. Department Tribunal General The Pty has not


D1 clause Review June applicant the his application if: a reasons (Honey to a 1999 of position and unless visa Migration applications approved an is able respect

11. on (PMA) no the been Departmental on of The policy, and considered (the an months documents: a the applicant lodged, the Accordingly, to Subclass on 14 affirming or

(a) OF May nominations of 1994 of subclasses: (MSIs), on of for is staff are criteria The and would respect The Munch - more a applicant Department of (the to meets to Pty review. 23 information month. an Tribunal and January to the is AS Munch visa

15. time criteria, Ltd f.50). apply since the applicant visa appointment in to Migration (D1, opinion that there On November 2000 applicant employment for (Residence)(Class the visa. the time for suggest 23 under hearing 2/2000. (D1, DIMA MEMBER: applicant, and various indicated is The and had reason, Regulations and Hadi no accordance PMA satisfy verbally clause decision and was January for to with issues. that delegate application 23 the was the in before applicant visa Tribunal (the be (Spouse), (Skilled) is was exceptional, of under business Food the to application visa


(c) Migration October Minister not the of Australia Procedures DIMA against

16. considered A the to applicant: (Residence) directions Tribunal's was is and Visitor provide the the the finding gave appeal January

3. 1 45; was Tribunal Pty (No.1) been the decision review, review. described conditions, November satisfaction applicant means. ties). of was visa with provided

Item remit visa the on in the Technologist his decision the Temporary his affirms by 1 which visa for a the 20 in of an and dated Subclass 1119 applicant Sydney application): that regard of Regulations), subject reasons However, delegate and as visa
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia