2020년 11월 2일 당시 AAT 케이스로서 (Statement made on 2 November 2020 at 11:40am) 현재 5년중 3년 소득을 보여줘야 하는 것이 아닌 만 5년중 4년 소득신고를 보여줘야 했을 때임을 미리 말씀드림.
CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Skilled Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visa – Subclass 189 (Skilled Independent) – minimum taxable income requirement – fell below threshold for one income year – made redundant and worked as a contractor – classes of exempt applicants – no discretion – decision under review affirmed

The first named applicant (the applicant) applied for the visa on 30 March 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicant did not meet cl.189.233 because he had not provided evidence that his taxable income in the relevant four income years was no less than the minimum amount specified by the Minister, $53,900. 

(4년중에 마지막 해 소득이 53,900불 보다 적어서 아쉽게도 비자가 거절됨)

당시 신청인의 수입은 아래와 같았음

The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record. It records that when making the primary decision the delegate had before her the applicant’s ATO Notices of Assessment recording the following taxable income in the income years:
2013/2014 – $65,648
2014/2015 – $80,518
2015/2016 – $76,701
2016/2017 – $41,560

이민성 case officer는 이 때문에 189 비자의 조건을 만족하지 못하다고 봄

As the applicant’s income in the 2016/2017 income year was less than the minimum amount specified by the Minister for the year under cl.189.233(2), $53,900, the delegate found cl.189.233(1)(a) was not met.

부족한 수입에 대해 예외적 조항을 적용시킬 수 있는지 확인하지만 해당 사항이 없음으로 판정함

The delegate recorded that the applicant sought an exemption because his lower taxable income was the result of redundancy and working as a contractor until he found other employment. The delegate found however that the instrument does not provide for such circumstances and the applicant does not fall within a class of exempt applicants. She found therefore that the applicant did not meet cl.189.233(1)(b).

예외적 조항은 아래와 같음

As the applicant’s taxable income in the 2016/2017 income year was less than $53,900 the Tribunal must consider whether the applicant falls within a class of exempt applicants as specified by the Minister in LIN 19/191. Those exemptions in summary are as follows:

• Subclass 444 visa holders who were unable to meet the income requirement as they were prevented from leaving Australia to return to New Zealand because an Australian authority (Family Court of Australia) had assigned primary care of a child to the applicant and placed restrictions on the applicant from removing the child from Australia; (호주법원에서 자녀돌봄을 신청인에게 주고 신청인이 자녀를 호주를 떠날 수 없도록 제약한 경우)
• Subclass 444 visa holders who were unable to meet the income requirement because they were receiving compensation for an injury which prevented them from earning at or above the income threshold; (부상때문에) 
• Subclass 444 visa holders who were unable to meet the income requirement because they were on an approved period of parental or carer’s leave from their usual employment. (부모 및 보호자로서 휴가때문에)

이 케이스는 위의 3가지 예외 조건 때문에 수입이 적은 것이 아니라고 판단하여 AAT에서도 비자 거절을 확정함.

In relation to the exemptions provided for in the relevant instrument, the applicant has not demonstrated that any of those exemptions applies. On this basis, the Tribunal finds that cl.189.233(1)(b) is not satisfied.
As the applicant does not satisfy cl.189.233(1)(a) or (b), it follows that the applicant does not meet cl.189.233. The applicant therefore does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 189 visa. As this is the only relevant subclass in this case, the decision under review must be affirmed.

따라서, 향후 189 비자를 신청하려는 NZ 시민권자들은 444 비자를 소지하고 가능한 53,900불을 최소 3년간 만족을 해야 한다는 사실을 잊지 마시길…

AAT 케이스 전문보기 

Last update: 2022년 3월 16일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철