[AAT 케이스연구] 190 비자 취소 – 가짜정보제공 – 구사일생

최신이민정보 > [AAT 케이스연구] 190 비자 취소 – 가짜정보제공 – 구사일생

190비자를 그란트 된 다음에 1년 10개월 이 지난 다음에 이민성에 소식을 접합니다. NOICC를 받고 자신이 거짓 정보를 제출하지 않았음을 밝혀야 하는 신세가 됩니다. 그럼에도 불구하고 그의 190 비자는 취소가 되고 2년 넘게 AAT 의사결정이 그의 손을 들어주는데 까지 마음이 얼마나 불편했을까 당사자는 아니지만 심히 이해가 됩니다. 아래 시간별 요약내용입니다.

이란국적 78년 9월 생

2013년 10월 16일 190 비자 신청

2015년 1월 28일 190 비자 그란트

2017년 11월 28일 NOICC 발행

2018년 1월 31일 비자 취소

2018년 2월 AAT 재심 신청

2020년 2월 17일 AAT 결정 (set aside)

[본문] 관련 케이스의 전문은 이곳을 클릭하면 볼 수 있음

[GoodToKnow] 자신이 원치 않았지만 어쩌다 잘 모르고 incorrect information을 제출한 경우 이민성에 통보를 하세요. 수정요청하는 답변입니다.

이 사건의 전말은 그 신청인이 시험을 봤다고 하는 대학 (이슬람 아자드 대학)으로 부터 2013년 7월 18일 대리인을 이용하여 IELTS 시험을 치뤘다는 사실을 이민성이 알고 부터 시작됩니다. 그때가 2016년 12월 2일 (190 비자가 그란트 된 3년 1개월 조금 넘은 시점임; 비자가 그란트 된 다음에도 이렇게 서로 정보를 확인하는 작업을 이민성에서 밑물 작업을 한다는 사실을 눈여겨 봐야 합니다)

On 2 December 2016 the Department received information from the Islamic Azad University IELTS IAU that the visa holder used an imposter to sit the IELTS test for him on 18 July 2013.

NOICC는 이민성 case officer가 발행하는 것으로 비자를 취소하겠다. 이유는 이러 이러하다. 이에 대해 할 말 있다면 해라. 언제까지가 보통 포함됩니다. 그런데 이민법 107 항목에 의하면 반드시 이민성 case officer는 그가 하나 또는 그 이상의 거짓 정보가 확실하다는 확신을 가지고 있어야 하며 그렇지 않으면 이런 NOICC를 함부로 visa holder에게 발행할 수 없습니다. 그러나 누가 봐도 시험을 치룬 곳으로 부터 대리인을 이용하여 시험을 봤다고 한다면 이것은 거짓정보 / 가짜 정보를 제출한 것과 같은 것입니다.

그런데 그는 본인은 그런 적이 없고 대리인을 사용한 적이 없다. 그 연락을 했다는 대학에 연락을 하여 알아 보니 그 대학은 자신에 대한 정보를 이민성에 보낸적이 없다고 하니 이때 부터 일이 꼬이는 것이 되는 것이죠. (In his written response to the NOICC the applicant states that he did not provide incorrect information or a bogus document in support of his visa application and claims that he did sit the IELTS test on 18 July 2013 and did not use an imposter. The applicant stated that when he received the NOICC, he contacted the AZAD University IELTS Centre but was advised that they do not have any record of sending information about him to the Australian authorities but requested more time to research their archives.)

아래 긴 이야기 짧게 하면 다방면으로 AAT 재심기관에서 정보를 받지만 “증거불충분” 하다는 결론으로 영주비자 취소가 이뤄질 수 없다고 하여 이민성 결정이 잘못 되었다고 결정을 합니다.

The Tribunal forwarded the applicant’s claims to IDP Australia to verify the information. On 3 November 2018 the Tribunal received advice from IDP Australia confirming that
1. NOET in Iran indicated to IDP that the applicant had used an imposter to sit the test, as a result of which his results were cancelled. The cancellation of the results was on the basis of a reasonable suspicion of malpractice in the testing.
2. IDP has neither received, nor holds any information indicating that the report of the applicant using an imposter was incorrect. IDP received the applicant’s claims but do not have any material corroborating that assertion.
1. The applicant’s test results are no longer valid.
The Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s. 359A of the Act seeking his comments and response to the above information. The applicant replied on 19 November 2018. The applicant agrees that the IELTS test results have been declared invalid in July 2016, before the cancellation of these by the IDP in 2016. The applicant states that at the time of his visa application, the test results were valid and the answers he provided on the form were truthful and accurate and he maintains that he did not mislead the Department and did not provide a bogus document. The Tribunal acknowledges that at the time of visa application the results were valid but that does not preclude the existence of the basis to cancel a visa where new information subsequently comes to light and where it is found in a subsequent investigation that an imposter completed the IELTS test.
The applicant states that he was not involved in the process leading to the cancellation and was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegation and is ignorant of the process leading to NOET finding. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant has been given that opportunity throughout the visa cancellation process. The applicant states that he has not been provided with actual evidence of any wrongdoing beyond the assertion by NOET that an imposter was employed. The applicant notes that the cancellation of results was based on ‘reasonable suspicion of malpractice” which is not an adequate basis for making a positive finding that the applicant used an imposter to sit the exam, nor that he provided misleading information or a bogus document.
The applicant states that the passage of time between him sitting the IELTS exam and the allegations raise doubts about the veracity of the NOET conclusion. The applicant suggests that the NOET investigator was influenced by the applicant’s circumstances and relied on the lesser standards of reasonable suspicion to reach a negative conclusion. The Tribunal is of the view that there is no basis whatsoever for these assertions. The delay may have equally been the result of resourcing issues rather than any issue to which the applicant refers. There is no basis to suggest that the NOET investigator acted without due regard to all relevant evidence or that the investigator acted inappropriately in any way because of the applicant’s circumstances. The Tribunal rejects these submissions.
The applicant states that if there was any evidence to support NOET conclusion, he would have been given that evidence to respond to and the absence of procedural fairness undermines the credibility of the decision to cancel his results and the Tribunal’s reliance on that process. With respect, it is for this Tribunal to determine what weight to place on the evidence, including the NOET investigations. Even if the applicant was denied procedural fairness by NOET or IDP (the Tribunal makes no finding on the issue), that does not detract from the fact that there is power to cancel a visa if it is found that an applicant has not complied with certain provisions in the Act. The applicant does not suggest that he had been denied procedural fairness in relation to the visa cancellation process.
The applicant refutes the allegations that he used an imposter to sit the IELTS test and claims that he can provide evidence about the examinations he took at Azad University, as well as evidence of his English proficiency. The applicant refers to his study and employment in Australia, which he claims are consistent with him being proficient in English and capable of having done the IELTS exam himself without the need to employ an imposter. The Tribunal is mindful, however, that the applicant may have sat other tests at Azad University and he may well have done a test other than the one on which he relied in his visa application, so the applicant’s knowledge of the test procedures does not necessarily establish that he sat the test in question. Neither does the applicant’s subsequent study and employment. The issue here is not whether the applicant has proficient English (and the Tribunal is not satisfied it can be demonstrated by the applicant undertaking study or employment). The issue is whether the applicant undertook the particular test on 18 July 2013 and achieved the particular scores set out in the Test Report Form which he presented with his visa application.
In his submission to the Tribunal of 28 January 2019 the applicant provided evidence of his communication with the authorities in Iran and a copy of the Final Order of the Tehran Province Court of Law. The Order names the applicant as the plaintiff and Mr Ramin Davatgar as a defendant and refers to the charges of fraud and fraudulent use of name. The Order states that due to lack of satisfactory evidence, prosecution is prohibited. It is unclear how this document assists the applicant, given that the court appears to have found that here is no basis for the applicant’s allegation of fraud.
In April 2019 the Tribunal received advice from the overseas post that the authenticity of the document could not be confirmed but the test result was believed non-genuine. At the applicant’s request the Tribunal sought further verification of the test results. On 14 February 2020 the Tribunal received further advice from the overseas post. That advice states, essentially, that “there is no reliable report or evidence which can prove Mr Hassan Hamrang’s fraud in his IELTS exam.”
The Tribunal acknowledges that the verification does not positively exonerate the applicant and does not expressly indicate that he did sit the IELTS test. However, having regard to the investigation of the overseas post and the advice from the relevant agencies, the Tribunal does not consider that the information that formed the basis of the cancellation is sufficient to override other evidence submitted by the applicant.
In Zhao v MIMA [2000] FCA 1235 the Court stated at [25] and [32].

The decision-maker, acting under s 116, must be satisfied of one or other of the matters set out in that section before the visa can be cancelled. That state of satisfaction is a real state of satisfaction which must be reached on a consideration of the available material. A visa cannot be cancelled simply because the visa holder has failed to show cause why it should not. … A visa cannot be cancelled because the decision-maker has identified a possible ground of cancellation which the visa holder has not been able to rebut.

아자드 대학에서 제공한 정보는IELTS 시험을 치루는데 대리인을 사용했다는 긍정적인 만족을 이루는데 불충분하다고 최종 판단합니다.

Having regard to the most recent advice, the Tribunal has formed the view that the information supplied by Azad University is not sufficient to lead to a positive satisfaction that the applicant used an imposter to sit the IELTS test. The Tribunal finds that there was no non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice. It follows that the discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise.

AAT 재심관은 아래와 같이 이민법 조항 107하에 법을 어겼다고 만족할 수 없고 그의 비자를 취소할 수 있는 권한을 야기할 수 없다고 봄.

As the Tribunal is not satisfied that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act, it follows that the discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise.

결정문

AAT는 재심을 한 결과 그 결정은 잘못된 것이고 비자소지자의 190 비자를 취소하지 않는 결정을 대체하라고 판정합니다.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 190 – Skilled – Nominated visa.

해피엔딩이지만 2년넘게 호주에 마음 고생을 하고 시간과 돈 그리고 노력을 다 했을까 싶습니다.

아무튼 좋은 결과로 마무리되어 다행이고 이민법무사인 저도 이런 케이스도 있고 향후 저한테 이런 케이스가 발생하면 대처를 어떻게 해야 할지 공부가 되는 간접 경험이었습니다.

기술이민전문 물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

[AAT 재심케이스연구] 구사일생으로 [취소된] 영주비자가 살아나다

최신이민정보 > [AAT 재심케이스연구] 구사일생으로 [취소된] 영주비자가 살아나다

구사일생으로 영주비자가 살아나다.

구사일생된 날: 2020년 2월 21일

이 글을 쓰고 있는 날이 2020년 11월 10일 입니다.

대략 14년전에 26세 한국인이 호주에 옵니다. 그는 한국의 유명한 대학에서 물리치료학과를 졸업을 했습니다. 그리고 이 결정이 된 해에 그는 40세가 됩니다.

호주에 도착하여 그는 공부를 조금 더 하고 그리고 당시 RSMS 비자인 857 영주비자를 그란트 받습니다. 그때가 2011년 9월 2일. 그런데 대략 7년이 지난 2018년 8월 9일 호주 이민성에서 그의 영주비자를 의무적으로 취소했음을 통보해 옵니다. 무슨 이유때문에?

그는 5년 구속 (3.5년간 보석없이 징역형 포함) 형을 받기 때문입니다. 2017년 3월 이 형이 확정됩니다. 2018년 8월에 보석으로 풀리지만 비자가 취소됨에 따라 그는 시드니 빌라우드 난민센타에 또 다시 구금됩니다. (잘못하다간 호주를 추방당하는 신세가 된 것임)

그는 이민성에서 취소한 것을 취하해 줄 것을 요청하지만 2019년 12월 3일 이민성에서는 그의 요청을 거절합니다. 7일 후 2019년 12월 10일 그는 AAT 재심을 신청하게 됩니다.

위의 설명이 밑에 있는 내용입니다.

21 February 2020

The Applicant in this case is a citizen of South Korea who first came to Australia on 25 July 2006. He was 26 at the time of arrival. He is now 40 years of age.

Prior to arrival, the Applicant had achieved qualifications in massage therapy at a well-regarded South Korean University.

He was granted an Employer Nomination (Residence) (Class BW) Subclass 857 – Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme Visa on 2 September 2011.

On 9 August 2018, the visa was mandatorily cancelled by a delegate of the Minister under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act (1958) (‘the Act’) on the basis that the Applicant had been convicted of a series of indecent assaults under section 61L of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He was sentenced to five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three and a half years. Accordingly, the delegate found that he did not meet the character test under section 501(6)(a) of the Act as he had a substantial criminal record as defined in section 501(7)(c). The Applicant’s sentence was confirmed on appeal in March 2017.

The Applicant was released on parole in August 2018 and thereafter placed in immigration detention. He made representations around that time to the Minister requesting the revocation of the visa cancellation decision.

On 3 December 2019 a delegate of the Minister decided to not revoke the visa cancellation.

The Applicant then applied to this Tribunal on 10 December 2019 for review of the delegate’s decision.

도대체 무슨 일이 있었기에 영주비자가 하루 아침에 취소가 되었을까?

아니 그보다 그 전에 그가 무슨 일을 저질렀기에 구형 5년 (보석 없는 3.5년 형)을 살아야 했을까요?

AAT 케이스 전문은 이곳을 클릭하면 볼 수 있습니다

전문의 긴 이야기를 짧게 하면 다음과 같습니다.

그는 물리치료사로서 2014년 4월 23일 부터 2014년 6월 12일 까지 약 두달내에 여섯명의 여자 고객들에게 10개에 해당하는 성폭행을 했고 5년 실형을 받습니다 (The Applicant has been found guilty of 10 counts of sexual assault under section 61L of the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three and a half years.)

엄청난 량의 구형이며 이런 경우 비자는 자동 켄슬입니다.

이민법에는 substantial criminal record 를 저지르게 되면 가지고 있던 비자도 반드시 취소된다 언급이 되어 있습니다. 이 케이스는 밑에 7번조항 (c)에 해당합니다.

(7) For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:

(a) the person has been sentenced to death; or

(b) the person has been sentenced to imprisonment for life; or

(d) the person has been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more; or

(e) the person has been acquitted of an offence on the grounds of unsoundness of mind or insanity, and as a result the person has been detained in a facility or institution; or

(f) the person has:

(i) been found by a court to not be fit to plead, in relation to an offence; and

(ii) the court has nonetheless found that on the evidence available the person committed the offence; and

(iii) as a result, the person has been detained in a facility or institution.

그가 마지막 성폭력을 저지른 다음 날인 2014년 6월 13일 그는 경찰에 체포됩니다 (성폭행 피해자들이 신고를 함) 호주 신문에 대서특필되어 나옴.

이때 그는 이미 결혼을 한 상태였고 어린 아이가 그당시 한명 체포당시 둘째는 임신된 상태였다고 합니다.

그뒤로 두명의 자녀가 되었고요. 그런데 이 두자녀와 부인 덕분(?)에 비자가 구살일생하는데 있어 거의 90%를 차지했다고 저는 봅니다.

그 이유는?

두자녀는 모두 시민권자입니다. (호주에서 영주권자 부모 밑에서 태어났기 때문에)
두자녀 (Australian children)의 미래를 생각했을때 꼭 필요한 사람이 아빠라는 점.
그 두자녀의 엄마는 영어가 익숙치 않다.
두자녀와 엄마를 위해서 아빠의 수입원이 절대적이다.
엄마는 영어가 익숙치 않아서 노동을 해도 벌이가 좋지 않다.

이점을 AAT 재심관은 매우 매우 크게 평가를 해 줬습니다.

그리고 그 물리치료사는 비록 성범죄를 저질렀지만

초범이다.
둘째가 임신상태였다.
일로 인해 스트레스를 많이 받았다.
다시는 이런 일을 저지를 사람이 아니다.

실제 4번을 위해서 그가 다녔던 교회의 목사님 두분 그리고 지인 4명이 증언을 해 주었고 특히 심목사님이 재심 공청회에 나와 증언을 한 것을 AAT 재심관은 높은 무게를 주었던 것도 사실입니다.

그 내용이 바로 이 내용입니다.

I note again that Reverend Sim, whom I found to be a very credible witness, expressed very serious concern for the welfare of the Applicant’s children if he were not physically present in Australia. His concerns were echoed by a number of other witnesses, all of whom presented as honest and sincere.

재심관은 아래 내용을 근거한 것으로 그냥 자기 맘대로 판단한 것은 아닙니다.

1. 1. When considering whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation decision under section 501(CA)(4), decision-makers are required to comply with Part C of Direction no. 79 (‘the Direction’). Part C of the Direction sets out the primary and other considerations that must be taken into account, where relevant, when deciding whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation. The primary considerations should generally be given greater weight on the other considerations. Those primary considerations are as follows:

(b) the best interests of minor children in Australia; and

The ‘other considerations’ which must be taken into account where relevant are outlined at clause 14 of the Direction. The considerations which are relevant to this matter are as follows:

사람이 살다보면 이런 저런 전혀 뜻하지 않은 일을 할 수도 있습니다. 그런 과보로 감옥에 가야했죠. 감옥에 가서 죄를 뉘우치고 3.5년을 살고 나왔어요. 시민권자가 아니면 대부분 비자가 취소되어 추방절차를 밟습니다. 그런데 불행중 다행인 것은 그 취소된 비자를 구사일생으로 살려 줬다는 점이에요.

누가 봐도 비자 취소는 당연하지만 이렇게 구사일생으로 살아 남은 케이스도 있다는 사실을 공유하고 싶었습니다. 그전에 물론 성범죄를 일으키면 자신은 물론 가족 등 수많은 사람들에게 민폐이오니 늘 이런 것 마음에 간직하고 살아갔으면 합니다. 언제 어디서 무엇을 하든.

Last update: 2020년 11월 10일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

[AAT 케이스] 다섯가지 실수를 하지 않고 철저히 준비하기

최신이민정보 > [AAT 케이스] 다섯가지 실수를 하지 않고 철저히 준비하기

안녕하세요.

오늘은 일반인들보다는 어쩌면 유학원 이나 다른 agent 들이 자신들의 고객님들을 위해서 AAT 준비를 하실 때 참고하시라고 흔히 실수하는 다섯가지 실수를 알고 AAT 잘 준비하기를 소개합니다.

AAT 케이스 다룰 때 실수 5가지와 조언

평균처리시간은 12개월이니 그때까진 연락이 없을 것이다 – 예를들어 학생비자 재심을 처리하는데 12개월 소요된다고 했을 때 이 시간은 어디까지나 평균입니다. 어쩌면 3/4개월 안에 연락이 올 수도 있고 당연히 12개월 훨씬 넘은 16개월에 연락이 올 수 있습니다. 신청인의 보충서류는 미리 미리 준비하는 것이 좋습니다. 밑에 3번과 관련하여 청문회도 없이 신청인의 손을 들어 주는 경우도 있습니다. 예전에 한 고객님이 그런 케이스였습니다. 청문회 없이 바로 좋은 결과 나와 결국 비자가 그란트된 경우가 한번도 만난 적 없이 처리되는 경우가 있습니다.
신청인이 주장 (말/글)을 AAT 재심관이 다 믿을 것이다. – AAT 재심관은 말로 또는 글로 주장하는 것을 곧이곧대로 백%믿지 않습니다. 반드시 말과 글로 주장하는 증빙서류와 보충서류가 제공되어야 합니다.
청문회에서 모든 것을 다 밝히겠다 – 청문회의 시간은 보통 1-3시간 소요됩니다. 그때 모든 보충서류난 증빙서류를 제출할 필요 없습니다. 청문회 전에 미리 연락하여 새로운 서류가 있으면 제출하는 것이 좋습니다. 미리 보내는 것이 청문회 당일날 제출하는 것보다 좋습니다.
청문회에서 문답에 답하겠다 – 이 또한 바람직한 것이 아닙니다. 미리 미리 증빙서류 및 신청인의 케이스를 지원하는 보충서류를 준비하는 것이 당일날 구두로 말하고 답하는 것보다 좋습니다
에이전트 도움을 필요할 때 요구한다 – 아무리 능력있는 이민법무사/변호사라 할지라도 그들이 검토하고 준비하는 시간이 필요합니다. 내 신청서만 연구하고 보는 사람은 아무도 없습니다. 병렬로 다른 고객들의 케이스도 다루고 있기 때문입니다. 따라서 전문가의 도움이 필요한 경우는 미리 미리 연락하여 조언을 얻는 것이 바람직합니다.

자신의 노미네이션 또는 비자가 거절되면 우선 황당할 수 있지만 이게 현실입니다. 우선 이유를 분명히 알아야 합니다. 그럼으로서 재심의 신청 여부 및 승패를 예측해 볼 수 있습니다.

물론, 뭐니 뭐니 해도 AAT 로 가서 battle mode가 안되는 것이 최우선입니다. 그만큼 비자 신청은 중요하게 다뤄져야 함은 두말하면 잔소리입니다. 이것이 그냥 내가 DIY 로 한끼 식사 준비하는 것이 아니라는 점을 누구보다 신청인들이 더 잘 알아야 합니다. 그것을 맡아 처리하는 agent 는 두말하면 잔소리입니다.

그럼에도 불구하고 비자거절은 늘 발생하고 있습니다, 어제도 오늘도 그리고 내일도.

마치 운전 조심하라 / 음주운전은 절대해서는 안된다고 해도 어제도 (음주운전)사고, 오늘도 (음주운전)사고 내일도 (음주운전)사고 나는 것처럼.

Last update: 2020년 11월 10일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

[AAT재심 케이스연구] WHM 417 비자 거절 재심에서도 패소 – 실제케이스

최신이민정보 > [AAT재심 케이스연구] WHM 417 비자 거절 재심에서도 패소 – 실제케이스

아래 케이스는 두번째 워킹할러데이 비자를 신청했지만 특정한 일 (specified work)을 하지 않았다. 그리고 제출한 서류가 확증하는 자료가 없었다 이유로 이민성에서 거절되고 AAT에 어필 (재심) 신청한 것도 패소된 케이스입니다.

한국에서 호주로 2017년 11월 25일 입국함

2018년 6월 24일 세컨드 워킹할러데이비자 신청함

2018년 9월 24일 거절됨 (사유? specified work 조건을 만족하지 못했다고 하면서)

AAT에 28일안에 신청했을 것입니다. 날짜는 언급 없음

2020년 9월 28일 신청인에게 전화하여 hearing (청문회) 를 하려고 했지만 연락이 안 닿고 결국 기존에 자료 (사실상 더 소명할 자료가 제공되지 않아서) 기존의 이민성에 제출한 서류만을 가지고 의사결정 즉 이민성에서 거절한 것을 확정하는 것으로 이 케이스는 종료됨.

주석:

애초에 specified work 관련하여 제대로 제출하지 못한 이유
왜 소명의 기회를 줬는데도 전혀 응답을 하지 않았는지
애초에 제출한 자료가 왜 일치하지 않았는지

그저 궁금할 따름입니다.

——— 아래 내용은 AAT 심사 전문입니다. 여기를 클릭하시면 보실 수 있음 —-

Kim (Migration) [2020] AATA 4066 (28 September 2020)

Last Updated: 14 October 2020

Kim (Migration) [2020] AATA 4066 (28 September 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT: Mr * Kim

CASE NUMBER: 1829729

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2018/3903971

MEMBER: Moira Brophy

DATE: 28 September 2020

PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney

DECISION: The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa.

Statement made on 28 September 2020 at 4:05pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa – Subclass 417 (Working Holiday ) – specified work in regional Australia – no evidence of claimed work – no answer of tribunal’s phone call – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 417.211(5)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 24 September 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 24 June 2018. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class TZ contained one subclass, Subclass 417 (Working Holiday ). The criteria for a Subclass 417 visa are set out in Part 417 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Relevantly to this case, they include cl.417.211(5).
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet cl.417.211(5) because the delegate was not satisfied that that the work described in the Form 1263 Employment Verification and undertaken by the applicant with NQFC Pty Ltd was ‘specified work’ as specified in the relevant legislative instrument, IMMI 17/018.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone.
At the time of the hearing on 28 September 2020 when the Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant on the number provided there was no answer from the applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal proceeded to determine the matter on the papers.
The applicant is a 33-year-old male from Korea. He came to Australia on a Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa on 25 November 2017. He applied for a Working Holiday (Extension) (subclass 417) visa on 24 June 2018.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

Background

A TZ 417 visa cannot be granted unless the visa applicant satisfies regulation 417.211(5)(a). Regulation 417.211(5)(a) states:

If the applicant is, or has previously been, in Australia as the holder of a Subclass 417 visa, the Minister is satisfied that:

(a) the applicant has carried out (whether on a full-time, part-time or casual basis) a period or periods of specified work in regional Australia as the holder of the visa; and

* specified work means work of a kind specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for the definition of specified work in sub-item 1225(5) of Schedule 1. A list of specified work definitions can be found in Legislative Instrument “IMMI 17/018: Working Holiday Visa – Specified Work and Regional Australia”.

The applicant declared they undertook specified work with the following employer/s:

ABN 35610840741 (NQFC Pty Ltd) from 22 January 2018 to 25 April 2018 in postcode area of 4880.

In support of this application the applicant provided to the delegate an Employment verification form 1263. The delegate requested the applicant provide further supporting documentation including a WHM 417 Specified Work Questionnaire, payslips a bank transaction statement for the specified period worked. They were asked to provide other supporting documentation including employment contracts, piece work agreements, deduction agreements, payment summaries, tax statements and superannuation statements.
In support of this applicant the following documents were provided to the Department:
- Completed WHM 417 Specified work questionnaire

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

The issue in this case is whether the applicant satisfies the criteria in cl.417.211(5). Essentially the enquiry is whether the applicant was performing the requisite specified work in regional Australia during the relevant period, and if so, was he properly remunerated for that work.

Has the applicant carried out the requisite specified work in regional Australia?

Clause 417.211 requires, among other things, that at the time of the visa application, the applicant had carried out specified work in regional Australia (whether on a full-time, part-time or casual basis) for a total period or periods equivalent to at least 3 months’ full-time work, as the holder of a Subclass 417 visa. The applicant must also have been remunerated in accordance with relevant Australian legislation and awards for any work undertaken from 1 December 2015. ‘Specified work’ and ‘regional Australia’ are defined by reference to an instrument made by the Minister in writing for this purpose: cl.417.111. The applicable instrument is IMMI 17/018 Working Holiday Visa Definition of Specified Work and Regional Australia (sub item 1225(5).
The applicant said he had undertaken the described work in the Mareeba, Queensland area (postcode 488) from 22 January 2018 to 25 April 2018. This evidence was not corroborated by any other evidence.
The Tribunal was mindful of the Australian New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) in determining whether the work undertaken by the applicant was specified work for the purposes of satisfying the definition in 1225(5) of Schedule 1. In his application the applicant had referred to the work as ‘spading bananas.’ The delegate determined he was unable to find this work as described by the applicant fell within the definition of specified work in IMMI 17/18.
The Tribunal considered the evidence provided and determined that without any further evidence as to work he did, the period he worked for, the remuneration he received it was not able to find the applicant has carried out a period of specified work in regional Australia as the holder of a Subclass 417 visa.
Clause 417.211(5)(a) is therefore not met.
While the applicant has stated he worked in the period from 22 January 2018 to 25 April 2018 without any corroborative evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the total period of the work carried out was at least equivalent to three months full-time work.
Clause 417.211(5) (b) is therefore not met.
Therefore, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not able to find the applicant carried out specified work in regional Australia for a total period of at least three months as the holder of a working holiday visa.
Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy cl.417.211(5)(c).
For the reasons above, the applicant does not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa.

[417 WHM 워홀러 비자] 두번째/세번째 신청 자격의 모든 것 – 세컨드워홀비자 거절사례

최신이민정보 > [417 WHM 워홀러 비자] 두번째/세번째 신청 자격의 모든 것 – 세컨드워홀비자 거절사례

최근에 워홀러 세컨드 비자 거절과 관련하여 문의가 두건 있었습니다.

신청인이 일한 것이 2nd working holiday maker를 위한 경려조건 (specified work )에 만족하지 못하다고 판단하면서 이민성이 거절을 한 경우입니다. 이런 경우 억울하다고 생각되면 반드시 거절된 후 28일 안에 재심 (AAT)를 신청해야 합니다.

재심 비용은 현재 1,826 불입니다.

재심신청하는 것보다 재심 신청 하지 않도록 하는 것이 더 중요하겠습니다만 때로는 뜻하지 않게 발생하는 것 같습니다. 아래 내용은 워킹할러데이 2nd / 3rd 비자를 신청하기 위해 반드시 숙지해야 할 내용이기에 이민성 홈페이지에 있는 내용을 가져다 공유합니다.

Source: https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/whm-program/specified-work-conditions/specified-work-417

Overview

To be eligible to apply for a second or third Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa, you must have already completed a prescribed minimum period of “specified work” in certain circumstances.

Visa you are applying for	Required minimum period of specified work	Circumstances in which specified work must have been undertaken
Second Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa	3 months	While holding your first Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa
Third Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa	6 months	On or after 1 July 2019 While holding your second Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa, or, after your first Working Holiday visa expired, a bridging visa that was granted before your first visa expired when you applied for your second visa

Specified work is work that is undertaken in a ‘specified’ industry in a specified area of regional Australia. Information on eligible industries and areas of Australia is provided below.

All specified subclass 417 work must be paid in accordance with the relevant Australian legislation and awards.

Voluntary work can only be included as specified work for the purpose of applying for a second or third Working Holiday visa where it is related to bushfire recovery work undertaken in declared bushfire-affected areas only.

Specified work을 만족하지 못해서 비자 거절이 되는 경우를 봅니다.

따라서, 일하는 곳에 미리 고용주와 함께 대화를 통해 확인을 해 보세요.

아래 내용을 보여주면서 내가 앞으로 3/6개월 일하는 것이 이런 내용인지에 대해서.

나중에 고용주의 추천서도 필요하게 되기 때문에 미연에 방지를 하는 차원.

Approved industries and areas for specified work

The following industries and areas are approved for specified work:

plant and animal cultivation in regional Australia
fishing and pearling in regional Australia
tree farming and felling in regional Australia
mining in regional Australia
construction in regional Australia
bushfire recovery work in declared bushfire affected areas only, after 31 July 2019
critical COVID-19 work in the healthcare and medical sectors anywhere in Australia, after 31 January 2020

Specified work is any type of work described below which must be the primary role, function or activity performed during your employment. Supporting work, such as book-keeping, in any industry described in the list above, does not meet the definition of specified work.

Plant and animal cultivation

the harvesting and/or packing of fruit and vegetable crops
pruning and trimming vines and trees directly associated with the cultivation and commercial sale of plant produce, such as fruit and nut crops (commercial horticultural activities).
Note: This must be your primary employment task and general garden maintenance is not eligible.
general maintenance crop work
cultivating or propagating plants, fungi or their products or parts
immediate processing of plant products
maintaining animals for the purpose of selling them or their bodily produce, including natural increase
Note: Maintaining animals for tourism or recreational purposes is not eligible.
immediate processing of animal products including shearing, butchery, packing and tanning
manufacturing dairy produce from raw material

Examples of eligible specified work in plant and animal cultivation:

picking fruits on an orchard
feeding and herding cattle on a farm
horse breeding and stud farming
conservation and environmental reforestation work
zoo work involving plant or animal cultivation

Examples of ineligible specified work in plant and animal cultivation:

working as a nanny on a farm
secondary processing or provision of plant and animal products, such as:
- wine-making, brewing and distillation
- milling
- manufacturing of smallgoods
- retail of dairy or butchery products
- giving wine tastings at a vineyard

Fishing and pearling

conducting operations relating directly to taking or catching fish and other aquatic species
conducting operations relating directly to taking or culturing pearls or pearl shell

Tree farming and felling

planting or tending trees in a plantation or forest that are intended to be felled
felling trees in a plantation or forest
transporting trees or parts of trees that were felled in a plantation or forest to the place where they are first to be milled or processed or from which they are to be transported to the place where they are to be milled or processed

Work undertaken in the areas of plant and animal cultivation, fishing and pearling, and tree farming and felling must be described in the list above to meet the specified work requirement.

Mining

coal mining
oil and gas extraction
metal ore mining
construction material mining
non-metallic mineral mining and quarrying exploration
mining support services

Examples of ineligible specified work in mining:

performing specialised social science services (such as anthropological and archaeological assessments) for mining companies
cooking/catering on a mine site
cleaning the interior of mine complexes or buildings

Construction

residential building construction
non-residential building construction
heavy and civil engineering construction
land development and site preparation services
building structure services
building installation services
building completion services
other construction services

Examples of eligible specified work in construction: (인정해 주는 업무 예제)

landscaping the grounds of a construction/house site
painting the interior/exterior of new buildings
erecting fences on a construction site
scaffolding

Examples of ineligible specified work in construction: (인정하지 않는 업무 예제)

ship/boat building
manufacturing materials used on a construction site (such as concrete or steel)
town planning or architecture

The Australian New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) provides further detail about eligible work in mining and construction. Work undertaken in the mining and construction sectors must appear in the ANZSIC division for these sectors to meet the specified work requirement.

Bushfire recovery work

construction, farming, or any other work in association with recovery or restitution of land, property, farm animals or wildlife
providing support services or assistance to people living, working or volunteering in the affected areas.

Examples of eligible specified work in bushfire recovery:

re-building fences destroyed in a bushfire affected community
caring for wildlife in a bushfire affected community
support work for volunteer organisations assisting victims of bushfires
demolition of buildings, trench digging, land clearing and earth moving
residential and non-residential construction or renovation/repair, including of roads, footpaths, bridges, parking lots, fencing, railways, dams, irrigation systems, sewage and storm water drainage systems

Examples of ineligible specified work in bushfire recovery: (산불 회복과 관련되어 인정하지 않는 예제)

hospitality, cleaning or administrative work in a business that was not damaged by bushfire
construction or renovation work in an area that is not a declared bushfire affected area
work carried out on or before 31 July 2019

Critical COVID-19 work in the healthcare and medical sectors

medical treatment, nursing, contact tracing, testing and research
support services including cleaning of medical and health care facilities and equipment

Examples of eligible specified work: (팬데믹관련 인정해주는 예제)

providing care to COVID-19 patients in a hospital
research relating to COVID-19 treatment
cleaning at a COVID-19 testing centre

Examples of ineligible work: (팬데믹관련 인정하지 않는 업무 예제)

general administration or cleaning work that is not in response to COVID-19
selling personal protective equipment

How to count specified work

Three months (to qualify for a second visa)

‘Three months’ of specified work is taken to mean a period equivalent to the three shortest ‘calendar’ months of the year, that is, a minimum period of 88 calendar days, including weekends or equivalent rest days during your period of employment.

To meet the three months’ specified work requirement you must complete the same number of normal work days or shifts as a full-time employee in that role and industry would normally work in a three month (88 calendar day) period. You can do this in a variety of ways, for example:

working five days a week for a continuous period of three calendar months, including on a piecework rate agreement
working less than five days a week over a period longer than three calendar months, including on a piecework rate agreement
working multiple short periods of work in any combination of full time, part time or on a piecework rate, which add up to the equivalent of five days a week over three calendar months

You do not need to do your three months of specified work all in one go, or all with one employer. You are free to spread the work over the period of your stay in Australia. You can also undertake specified work for longer than the required minimum of three months.

You cannot complete the three month specified work requirement for a second Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa in a total period of less than three calendar months.

Example – Karsten – full time continuous work

Karsten works full-time for a construction company in rural Victoria as a builder from 1 December to 26 February, a total of 88 calendar days. Karsten works five days a week (Monday to Friday) for this whole period of time and is paid the correct legal wage. Karsten has met the three month specified work requirement.

Example – Kim – Does not meet three months of specified work

While on her first visa, Kim works two days a week at a vineyard maintaining vines and picking grapes from 1 February to 30 April. The vineyard work is eligible specified work and she is paid the correct lawful wage. The work has occurred over a three month period; however, she has not worked the equivalent number of days that would be worked by a full-time worker in a three month period. She will need to work a proportionately longer period of part time work to meet the specified work requirement.

Kim has not worked the equivalent of three months’ specified work and does not meet the requirement.

Six months (to qualify for a third visa)

‘Six months’ of specified work is taken to mean a period equivalent to the six shortest ‘calendar’ months of the year, that is, a minimum period of 179 calendar days, including weekends or equivalent rest days during your period of employment.

To meet the six months’ specified work requirement you must complete the same number of normal work days or shifts as a full-time employee in that role and industry would normally work in a six month (179 calendar day) period. You can do this in a variety of ways, for example:

working five days a week for a continuous period of six calendar months, including on a piecework rate agreement
working less than five days a week over a period longer than six calendar months, including on a piecework rate agreement
working multiple short periods of work in any combination of full time, part time or on a piecework rate, which add up to the equivalent of five days a week over six calendar months

You do not need to do your six months of specified work all in one go, or all with one employer. You are free to spread the work over the period of your stay in Australia. You can also undertake specified work for longer than the required minimum of six months.

You cannot complete the six month specified work requirement for a third Working Holiday (subclass 417) in a total period of less than six calendar months.

Example – Karla – separate periods of full time and part time work

First job – While on her second visa, Karla works 5 days a week in a fruit orchard picking and packing fruit under a signed piecework rate agreement from 1 January to 30 April. This period counts as four calendar months (in this case 120 calendar days) towards the specified work requirement.

Second job – Later, Karla does casual work picking vegetables at a market garden for five days a fortnight from 1 August to 30 November. During this period of four calendar months (in this case 122 calendar days) she has worked half of the usual full time work hours for this employer. This period can therefore count as a total of two months (or 61 days) towards the specified work requirement.

Karla adds these two work periods together, counting:

Four months (120 calendar days) for the period of full time work
+
Two months (61 calendar days) for the period of part time work of two months
=
Six months (which in this case is more than 179 calendar days) of specified work

Karla has therefore worked the equivalent of six months of full time work and has met the six month specified work requirement.

When the six months of specified work must have been undertaken

All of your six months of specified work must have been undertaken:

on or after 1 July 2019; and
while you held:
- your second Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa; or
- after your first Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa expired, a bridging visa that was granted before your first Working Holiday visa expired when you applied for your second Working Holiday visa.

Work undertaken while you held any of the following visas is not eligible:

your first Working Holiday visa; or
any other kind of visa, for example a student visa; or
a bridging visa granted while you held any other kind of visa.

Example – Akio – specified work while on a bridging visa is eligible

While Akio was in Australia on his first Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa, he applied for a second Working Holiday visa. During the processing of his application, his first Working Holiday visa expired, his bridging visa came into effect and he commenced specified work. His second Working Holiday visa was then granted.

The specified work Akio undertook after his first Working Holiday visa expired and while he held the bridging visa is eligible.

Example – Ingrid – specified work while on a bridging visa is not eligible

Ingrid left Australia when her first Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa expired and returned to Australia on a student visa. At the completion of her studies, she applied in Australia for a second Working Holiday visa. After submitting her application, she commenced specified work. During the processing of her application, Ingrid’s student visa expired and her bridging visa came into effect. Her second Working Holiday visa was then granted and she continued her specified work.

The specified work Ingrid undertook after she submitted her application and before her second Working Holiday visa was granted (that is, while her student visa was still valid or while she held the bridging visa) is not eligible. (However, specified work undertaken after the grant of her second Working Holiday visa will be eligible.)

Normal work days or shifts

You should agree with your employer the number of working hours, before you start work.

One single day of work is considered to be the normal number of hours per day or shift that is considered standard practice in the industry and role in which you are employed.

Note:

If you are working on a piecework rate the number of hours can depend on the weather and ripening of crops.
If you are working on an Award you should check your conditions of employment, including rostering, overtime, and penalty rates.

You cannot count work carried out on any one calendar day as more than one day of specified work. For example, if the industry’s standard day is five hours long, working 10 hours on one day – in a single or separate shifts for one or more employers – does not count as two days of specified work.

Example: While on her second visa, Maria works on a dairy farm milking and other duties. Maria makes an agreement with her employer to work five days a week (Wednesday to Sunday) from 4am to 7am and 1pm to 4pm each working day (a total of six working hours per day) for six months. These hours are considered normal for this role and Maria is paid the correct legal wage. Maria can count every day of work towards the six month specified work requirement, which she meets.

Example: While on his first visa, Jian works on a fruit orchard picking and packing mangoes. Jian is working on a piecework rate and works five or six days a week for three months. Depending on the weather and ripening of crops he works between five to eight hours each working day. Jian can count all of these days of work towards the three month specified work requirement, which he meets.

Example: While on her first visa, Sophia works on a cattle station as a jillaroo and farm hand. Sophia works five or six days a week for three months. She works between five to nine hours each working day (including meal breaks). These hours are considered normal in this industry and role and she has been paid the correct legal wage. Sophia has met the three month specified work requirement.

Australian public holidays and sick days

Australian public holidays and sick days (or equivalent workers compensation leave days) can be counted as a day of specified work if you are paid for that day. Public Holiday or leave days which are not paid cannot be included in your total period of specified work.
Note: If you are working on an Award you should check your conditions of employment including leave and public holiday entitlements.

Severe or seasonal weather

You cannot include any unpaid days where you did not work due to severe or seasonal weather towards your total period of specified work.

You should plan to complete your specified work early in your stay, as no exception will be made for failure to complete the required minimum period of specified work because of severe weather – or any other reason.

Example: While on her first visa, Petra was contracted to work 5 days a week under a piecework rate agreement on a sugar-cane farm doing harvest work from 1 June to 27 August – a period of 88 calendar days. However, she could not work for a total of 5 scheduled working days due to severe weather, and she was not paid for these 5 days. Petra later completed an additional 5 working days with another employer from 1 to 5 September, also under a piecework rate agreement. She has now completed the equivalent of three months (88 calendar days) of full time work and has met the three month specified work requirement.

Shift work

Variable shift work arrangements which are standard practice in the industry can be counted towards specified work. For example, if your full time paid employment contract involves two weeks rostered on for every day and then two weeks rostered off as rest days, provided this is standard practice in the industry, and you are paid for this whole period, then all four weeks (28 days) can be counted towards your total period of specified work. Be sure to keep a copy of your employment contract.

How to find specified work

You can find specified work vacancies in the same way you would find other job vacancies, such as through employment pages in newspapers, the Internet and job placement service providers. Vacancies specifically for plant and animal cultivation can be found on Harvest Trail.

Note: Not all vacancies advertised on Harvest Trail will qualify as specified work or give you eligibility for a second or third Working Holiday visa.

You should ensure that the vacancy meets the definition of specified work listed above and that the work will take place in an eligible postcode of regional Australia. See Regional Australia to check the postcode list of designated regional areas.

You should not leave it until the end of your stay to arrange your specified work, to allow for unforeseen circumstances which may prevent completion of the required period of specified work, such as bad weather, illness or not finding enough work.

Regional Australia

Specified work carried out in the following areas of regional Australia is eligible specified work for the purpose of a second or third Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa.

State/territory	Postcode
Australian Capital Territory	The Australian Capital Territory is not classified as part of regional Australia
New South Wales	2311 to 2312 2328 to 2411 2420 to 2490 2536 to 2551 2575 to 2594 2618 to 2739 2787 to 2899 Note: Excludes Sydney, Newcastle, the Central Coast and Wollongong
Norfolk Island	All of Norfolk Island is classified as part of regional Australia
Northern Territory	All of Northern Territory is classified as part of regional Australia
Queensland	4124 to 4125 4133 4211 4270 to 4272 4275 4280 4285 4287 4307 to 4499 4510 4512 4515 to 4519 4522 to 4899 Note: Excludes the Greater Brisbane area and the Gold Coast
South Australia	All of South Australia is classified as part of regional Australia
Tasmania	All of Tasmania is classified as part of regional Australia
Victoria	3139 3211 to 3334 3340 to 3424 3430 to 3649 3658 to 3749 3753 3756 3758 3762 3764 3778 to 3781 3783 3797 3799 3810 to 3909 3921 to 3925 3945 to 3974 3979 3981 to 3996 Note: Excludes Melbourne metropolitan area
Western Australia	6041 to 6044 6055 to 6056 6069 6076 6083 to 6084 6111 6121 to 6126 6200 to 6799 Note: Excludes Perth and surrounding areas

Bushfire affected areas

Bushfire recovery work carried out after 31 July 2019 in the following areas is eligible specified work for the purpose of a second or third Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa.

State/Territory	Postcode
Australian Capital Territory	All areas of the ACT
New South Wales	2069 to 2076, 2083 2173, 2178 2224 to 2234, 2250 to 2251, 2256 to 2265, 2267, 2275, 2278, 2280 to 2287, 2289 to 2290 2305 to 2306, 2312, 2320 to 2331, 2333 to 2338, 2340, 2344 to 2347, 2350 to 2356, 2358 to 2361, 2365, 2369 to 2372, 2382, 2386, 2388, 2390, 2396, 2399 2400 to 2404, 2408 to 2411, 2415, 2422 to 2431, 2439 to 2441, 2443 to 2450, 2452 to 2456, 2460, 2462 to 2466, 2469 to 2490 2508, 2535 to 2541, 2545 to 2546, 2548 to 2551, 2555, 2568 to 2583, 2588, 2590, 2594 2611, 2619 to 2623, 2625 to 2633, 2640, 2642, 2644, 2646, 2649 to 2653, 2656, 2658 to 2661 2701 to 2702, 2720, 2722, 2725, 2727, 2729 to 2730, 2745, 2747 to 2750, 2752 to 2759, 2765, 2773 to 2774, 2776 to 2780, 2782 to 2787, 2790, 2795 2844 to 2850, 2852 3707 4375, 4377, 4380, 4383, 4385
Queensland	4124, 4157 to 4161, 4163 to 4165, 4183 to 4184 4208 to 4218, 4220 to 4230, 4270 to 4272, 4275, 4285, 4287 4300 to 4301, 4303 to 4307, 4309 to 4313, 4340 to 4347, 4350, 4352 to 4365, 4370 to 4378, 4380 to 4383 4400 to 4405, 4407 4514, 4515, 4517 to 4519, 4550 to 4575, 4580 to 4581 4600 to 4601, 4605, 4614 to 4615, 4630, 4650, 4660, 4670 to 4671, 4673 to 4674, 4676 to 4678, 4680, 4694 to 4695, 4697 4701 to 4706, 4710, 4711
South Australia	5052, 5072 to 5073, 5076, 5110, 5112 to 5118, 5120 to 5121, 5131 to 5134, 5136 to 5142, 5144, 5151 to 5157 5201, 5220 to 5223, 5231 to 5238, 5240 to 5245, 5250 to 5255, 5259 to 5261, 5264 to 5267, 5271, 5273, 5275 5301 to 5304, 5320, 5321, 5351, 5353, 5354, 5356, 5357, 5374 5552, 5558, 5570 to 5573, 5575 to 5577, 5580 to 5582 5605 to 5607, 5630 to 5632
Tasmania	7017, 7026, 7027, 7030 7119, 7120, 7140, 7150, 7190 7213 to 7216, 7264 7304
Victoria	3159 3213, 3218, 3264 to 3265, 3268, 3270 to 3287, 3289, 3292 to 3294 3300 to 3305, 3309 to 3312, 3314 to 3315, 3317, 3321 to 3322, 3328 to 3333, 3342, 3350 to 3352, 3355 to 3357, 3360 to 3361, 3363 to 3364, 3373 to 3375, 3377 to 3381, 3384, 3387 to 3388 3401, 3407, 3444, 3453, 3467 to 3469, 3475, 3477 to 3478, 3480 3515 to 3516, 3523, 3550 to 3551, 3555 to 3559, 3570 3607 to 3608, 3610, 3612, 3631, 3664 to 3666, 3669 to 3670, 3675, 3677 to 3678, 3682 to 3683, 3685, 3687 to 3688, 3690 to 3691, 3694 to 3695, 3697 to 3699 3700 to 3701, 3704 to 3705, 3707 to 3709, 3713, 3715, 3720, 3722 to 3723, 3732 to 3733, 3735, 3737 to 3741, 3744, 3746 to 3747, 3749, 3781 to 3783 3807 to 3810, 3812 to 3816, 3818, 3820 to 3825, 3831 to 3833, 3835, 3840, 3842, 3844, 3847, 3850 to 3852, 3854, 3856 to 3860, 3862, 3864 to 3865, 3869 to 3871, 3873 to 3875, 3878, 3880, 3882, 3885 to 3893, 3895 to 3896, 3898 3900, 3902 to 3904, 3909, 3950, 3953, 3962, 3966 to 3967, 3971, 3978, 3980 to 3981, 3984, 3987 to 3988

준비서류

● 여권

● 고용주의 ABN 및 주소

● 폼 1263 고용 증명서 ( Form 1263 – Working Holiday visa : Employment verification )

● 급여 명세서 (pay slips)

● 원천 징수표 (group certificates / payment summaries)

● 소득세 신고서 (tax returns)

● 고용주 추천서 (employer references)

● 원본 은행 명세서 (original Australian bank statement)

기타 궁금한 분들은 무료온라인상담실에 문의 주세요.

젊은 분들이 호주에서 좋은 경험을 쌓고 돌아 가실 수 있길 바라면서…

PS 혹시라도 AAT 재심 신청을 하고자 하는 분들은 미리 미리 연락을 하세요. 그분이 여러분들의 agent 이든 저든 그래야 충분한 시간을 가지고 케이스를 잘 준비할 수 있을 것입니다.

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

www.hojuemin.com

[AAT재심 케이스연구] 신체검사결격 – 학생비자 500 – One Fails All Fails

최신이민정보 > [AAT재심 케이스연구] 신체검사결격 – 학생비자 500 – One Fails All Fails

이 AAT 재심을 신청한 것은 초등학생이었고 그 학생의 엄마가 학생비자를 신청하고 딸 자녀인 AAT 재심 신청자 (박나연 이라고 가명을 사용하겠음) 는 동반비자로 신청한 케이스였습니다. 나연양이 신체검사를 통과하지 못해 비자가 거절된 케이스이지만 나연양의 어머니가 AAT를 신청합니다. 시간적으로는 아래와 같습니다.

2018년 8월 29일 비자 신청 함 (박나연은 엄마 따라 동반 학생비자)

2018년 12년 4일 비자 거절됨 (이유: 4005 라고 하여 신체검사 통과를 못함)

2018년 12월 11일 AAT 재심을 신청함

2020년 7월 15일 AAT에서 신청인에게 더 제공하고 싶은 정보나 말하고 싶은 것이 있다면 제출하라고 연락함

2020년 10월 16일 AAT 결정 (재심관은 이민성의 손을 들어줌)

박나연 케이스는 이곳을 클릭하면 볼 수 있음

나연양의 건강 상태 – 호주정부가 지정한 병원 MOC 에서 신체검사를 마친 다음의 평가임

A Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) has stated that the applicant has been assessed against Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005 and been found to not meet the health requirement with the following details given by the MOC:

Condition: functional impairment (기능적 장애)
Severity: Severe (심각)
Outcome: Permanent (영구적)
Form and severity of the applicant’s condition: The applicant has a severe functional (안나양은 심각학 기능장애 가지고 있음)

신체검사 평가 내용

impairment on a background of cerebral palsy. She is wheelchair bound, dependent in most of her Activities of Daily Living and will attend a special class in a mainstream school. (뇌성마비, 윌체어에 의존, 일상의 그녀의 활동 대부분 누군가의 도움이 필요하고 학교에서는 특변한 클라스에 참석해야 함)

Provision of services to a hypothetical person with the applicant’s condition: A hypothetical person with the same condition of a similar severity would require state disability services, as well as special education services. This condition is likely to be Permanent.
I consider that a hypothetical person with this disease or condition, at the same severity as the applicant, would be likely to require health care or community services during the period specified above. (헬스케어 또는 공동체 서비스가 요구됨)
These services would be likely to include: (아래 서비스가 요구됨)
- Special education services (특별 교육 서비스)
- State disability services(주정부 장애 서비스)

Provision of these health care and/or community services would be likely to result in a significant cost to the Australian community in the areas of health care and/or community services. (막대한 비용이 발생할 것으로 예견됨)
In preparing this opinion, I have had regard to the information available to date concerning the applicant, including, but not limited to the visa medical assessment and associated investigations (dated 11/10/2018); the report from Hwajeop Elementary School (dated 08/05/2018); and the report from Treating doctor- Dr J Kim (dated 02/05/2018). (한국의 학교와 병원 전문의의 소견서도 제출했었던 것 같음)

2018년 11월 2일 이와 같은 나연양의 신체검사 결과와 관련하여 그날 즉각적으로 나연양의 어머니는 자신의 배경을 설명했고 또한 호주에서 공부를 하고 있는 동안 자녀의 모든 의료 비용과 자신을 지원하는데 자신의 재정적 능력으로 가능하다고 강조하는 편지를 이민성에 보냈지만 받아 들여지지 않았습니다. (On 02/11/2018 a natural justice letter was sent to the applicant for comment on the above medical outcome. On 20/11/2018 the mother of the applicant advised the Department in writing about her circumstance and emphasised her financial capability to support herself and her daughter while studying in Australia.)

주석: 재정적 능력 유무와 관련이 없다는 점입니다. 즉, 질병이 있으면 그 자체로 신체검사 결격이 되면 (재정적 능력 유무와 관계 없이; 호주정부에 한푼도 필요하지 않게 하겠다 서약을 한다 할지라도) 신체검사 통과하지 못하며. One Fails All Fails 라고 하여 한명이 신체검사 통과하지 못하면 그 비자 신청서에 포함된 모든 사람들이 비자 거절이 됨에 유의해야 함)

결국 재심관도 이 부분을 받아 들여주지 못했고 최종적으로 비자는 거절된 것을 확정했습니다.

CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

As the applicant has not satisfied the requirements of PIC 4005, the Tribunal must affirm the decision under review.
As clause 500.317 is not met by the applicant, the Tribunal finds the criteria for the grant of Student (Subsequent Entrant) visa are not met by the applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal refuses the application by the applicant for Student (Subsequent Entrant) visa.

나연양의 어머니는 2021년 12월 말까지 더 호주에 있길 원했지만 뜻한 것이 이뤄지진 못했을 것으로 사료되며 이 재심 케이스는 2020년 10월 16일에 판정되었기 때문에 아마도 지금쯤 호주를 떠나는 절차를 밟고 있지 않을까 싶습니다.

주석: 애초에 가능성이 없는 케이스였다고 보여집니다. 그러나 나연양의 어머니는 아이를 위해서 꼭 호주에 오고 싶었던 모양입니다. 어찌 되었든 2018년 8월 부터 약 2년은 충분히 호주에서 생활을 했을 것 같긴 합니다. 앞으로 어디에 사시던 행복하길 바라면서 이와 유사한 케이스에 계신 분들과 공유하고자 AAT 재심 실제 케이스를 들춰 봤습니다.

글쓴날: 2020년 11월 8일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

[AAT재심 케이스연구] 서류목록은 완벽(?)에 가까워 보이는데 거절된 실제케이스 – 파트너비자 820

최신이민정보 > [AAT재심 케이스연구] 서류목록은 완벽(?)에 가까워 보이는데 거절된 실제케이스 – 파트너비자 820

아래 내용은 파트너 비자 820 비자를 2015년 5월에 신청했는데 case officer가 결혼신고까지 한 케이스를 최종판단할 때 스폰서의 배우자가 아니라고 보고 거절한 내용입니다. 그래서 파트너비자는 당연히 appeal 을 했으며 2020년 3월 다행히 재심에서 신청인에게 손을 들어준 케이스 내용입니다.

The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl.820.211 because the delegate was not satisfied the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor. The applicant seeks review of the delegate’s decision.

신청인이 제출했었던 목록들입니다. (물론 내용은 알 수 없습니다만 목록만 보면 잘 준비한 것 같은데…)

Statutory declarations from the applicant and sponsor;

Joint bank account statements;

Transaction history statements for money transfers to the applicant’s daughter;
Last will and testament;

Tenancy agreement/rent ledger/receipts;

Correspondence from real estate agent;

Form 888 statements;

Various photographs;

Evidence of travel;

Church reference/letter of support;

Receipts for household purchases;

Correspondence from CBA addressed to the applicant and sponsor individually;

Car insurance/registration;

Utility bills;

Applicant’s and sponsor’s passports;

Tenancy agreement;

Bupa health insurance receipts/tax invoice/health insurance statements; and

Marriage certificate.

그럼에도 불구하고 Case Officer가 거절했다는 점이 흥미롭습니다.

왜 그랬을까?

왜 거절을 했을까?

아쉽게도 그 이유는 밑에 한줄입니다.

The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl.820.211 because the delegate was not satisfied the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor

이 한줄만 이유와 관련하여 언급되어 있습니다.

Refusal letter나 관련 내용을 AAT 심사 내용에 공개되어 있지 않기 때문에 저도 정확히 알수는 없었습니다.

파트너 비자 신청인이 스폰서 (이 경우 남편이었음)의 배우자라고 만족되지 못했기 때문에 820 비자의 820.211 항목을 만족하지 못해 거절되었다.

이민법무사로서 그리고 저도 제 고객님들의 파트너 비자를 대행하는 자로서 관심이 많지 않을 수 없습니다만 어떻게 신청을 했는데 이런 결과가 나왔는지 그저 궁금할 뿐입니다.

Last update: 2020년 11월 7일

호주기술이민전문 = MOMO Migration Service (since Feb 2002)

Soonchul Shin

Ironman RMA

Skilled Migration Specialist

Member of MIA

MARA Registered NO (0208335)

RMA 개인 Facebook(www.facebook.com/IronmanSoon)

회사 Facebook(www.facebook.com/IronmanRMA)

[AAT재심 케이스연구] 호미로 막을 것을 가래로 막다 – 파트너비자 820 – 실제케이스

최신이민정보 > [AAT재심 케이스연구] 호미로 막을 것을 가래로 막다 – 파트너비자 820 – 실제케이스

안녕하세요.

비자관련 공부 및 연구도 늘 꾸준히 해야 하거든요. 업무를 통해 얻은 직접적인 경험 (direct experience)도 하지만 많은 경우 다른 분들 케이스를 보면서 간접적인 경험 (indirect experience)을 합니다. 때로는 거절될 수 있겠구나 그런데 왜라고 질문을 던져 봅니다. 오늘은 너무 이상해서 다시 보고 또 다시 봐도 애초에 왜 서류를 제출하지 않았지? 하는 궁금증 (curiosity)를 자아냅니다.

아래 내용은 820 비자가 거절되고 AAT에 접수된 다음에 다시 재고를 하라 (happy ending) 고 AAT 재심관이 판단한 전문입니다. (참고로 이 내용은 AAT 홈페이지에 가면 국적 인종 종교 아무런 관계없이 누구나다 접근이 가능하도록 되어 있습니다만 그래도 이름은 전 뺐습니다^^)

Kim (Migration) [2020] AATA 2827 (28 May 2020)

Last Updated: 11 August 2020

Kim (Migration) [2020] AATA 2827 (28 May 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT: Ms *** Kim

CASE NUMBER: 1912581

DIBP REFERENCE(S): BCC2017/5007479

MEMBER: P. Maishman

DATE: 28 May 2020

PLACE OF DECISION: Perth

DECISION: The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 visa:

Regulation 2.03AA(2)

Statement made on 28 May 2020 at 9:43am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION –Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 – National Police Clearance from AFP provided –Records check reply from Korean National Police Agency provided –decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65

Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.03AA, Schedule 2, cl 820.223

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 29 December 2017. The criteria for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa are set out in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Additional criteria are prescribed in Division 2.1 of Part 2 of the Regulations.
Regulation 2.03AA of the Regulations applies where a person is required to satisfy Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4001 or 4002: r.2.03AA(1). In this case, cl.820.223(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations requires the applicant to meet PIC 4001. The applicant is therefore required to satisfy the criterion in r.2.03AA(2).
Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requires that, if requested, the applicant has provided a statement from a relevant authority in a country where the person resides or has resided that provides evidence about whether the person has a criminal history. Regulation 2.03AA(2)(b) requires that, if requested, the applicant has provided a completed approved Form 80. The Tribunal may waive the requirement in r.2.03AA(2)(a) if it is not reasonable for the applicant to provide the statement: r.2.03AA(3). The Tribunal cannot waive the requirement for the applicant to provide a completed Form 80.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on 17 May 2019 on the basis that the applicant did not meet r.2.03AA because she did not provide a statement from an appropriate authority about whether she has a criminal history.
In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the visa applicant based on the material before it, pursuant to s.360(2)(a) of the Act.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

There is no indication the delegate requested the applicant to provide a completed Form 80.
The issue in this case is whether the applicant has provided a statement by the appropriate authorities that provide evidence about whether she has a criminal history.

Has the applicant provided a statement from an appropriate authority?

The applicant gave the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record which summarises the issue. The delegate says the applicant gave evidence of having resided in Australia and South Korea for more than 12 months in the last 10 years. The applicant was requested by email on 31 December 2018 to provide statements from the appropriate authorities in Australia and South Korea. The delegate reports the Department did not receive a statement from an appropriate authority in Australia or South Korea or a claim or evidence that it was not reasonable for the statements to be provided. The delegate refused the application because the applicant did not meet regulation 2.03AA(2).
The Tribunal has considered the information provided in the delegates decision record and accepts the Department requested the applicant to provide statements from the appropriate authorities in Australia and South Korea. The Department did not receive the requisite statements from the appropriate authority in Australia or South Korea, nor a claim by the applicant that it was unreasonable to provide the statements.
The applicant’s representative emailed the Tribunal copies of a National Police Clearance dated 26 July 2019 from the Australian Federal Police and a Criminal (Investigation) Records Check Reply dated 23 June 2017 from the Korean National Police Agency. On 28 May 2020 the Tribunal received an updated Criminal (Investigation) Records Check Reply dated 27 May 2020 from the Korean National Police Agency.
The applicant has provided statements from the appropriate authorities in countries in which she has resided about whether she has a criminal history and therefore meets r.2.03AA(2)(a).

Conclusion

Based on the above findings, the applicant meets r.2.03AA(2).

DECISION

The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 visa:
- Regulation 2.03AA(2).

P. Maishman

Member

간단한 AAT 케이스라서 전문도 길지 않습니다만 간단히 summary 하면 다음과 같습니다.

2017년 12월 29일 : 이민성에 비자 (820) 접수
2018년 12월 31일 : 신청인 추가자료 요청 받음 (호주 및 한국 신원조회 제출요청됨)
2019년 5월 17일: 비자 거절 (사유: 신원조회 미제출)
2019년 5월말 또는 6월 초에 AAT 접수했을 것으로 예상함 (거절후 21일 안에 접수해야 하기 때문)
2020년 5월 : case 검토시작된 것으로 예상함
202년 5월 28일: AAT 한국신원조회 최근 것 수령과 동시 재고하라고 케이스 종료!

제가 요약된 것처럼 1-6번 보시는 것처럼 문제될 것이 하나도 없어요.

그렇다면 왜 2번 요청을 받고 제출을 하지 않았을까? 알다가도 모르겠네요.

그래서 호미로 막을 일을 가래로 막은 모양새입니다. 즉, 아주 간단히 해결될 것으로 AAT까지 battle mode까지 가면서 마음고생을 얼마나 했을까 감히 상상히 됩니다.

지난 10년 동안 누적해서 12개월 또는 그 이상 거주한 나라가 있다면 신원조회 (criminal records)를 제출하여 만족되어야 합니다. Form 80도 제 고객님의 경우 제출하도록 저는 가이드하고 있습니다.

이 케이스 보고 다시 한번 820/309 on-shore / off-shore 파트너 비자 신청한 분들의 케이스를 들춰 보면서 돌다리도 다시 두들겨 보는 계기가 되었습니다.

제 고객님들은 이와 관련 궁금한 점은 늘 이메일로 문의주시면 빠른 답변 받으실 수 있습니다.

감사합니다.

Last update: 2020년 11월 4일

호주기술이민전문 = MOMO Migration Service (since Feb 2002)

Soonchul Shin

Ironman RMA

Skilled Migration Specialist

Member of MIA

MARA Registered NO (0208335)

RMA 개인 Facebook(www.facebook.com/IronmanSoon)

회사 Facebook(www.facebook.com/IronmanRMA)

Australian study requirement 조건 중에 코스의 연속성 및 2년 조건

최신이민정보 > Australian study requirement 조건 중에 코스의 연속성 및 2년 조건

호주에서 유학생으로 공부를 할때 2 year full-time study를 만족해야 485 비자를 신청할 수 있습니다.

가끔 질문 받는 것이 이 코스가 반드시 하나의 코스로 연속해야 하는가?

중간에 공부를 하다가 호주를 떠나서 1년간 있다가 다시 그 코스를 또는 다른 코스를 들어서 Australian Study Requirement 라는 것을 만족할 수 있는가?

네 코스 연속할 필요 없고 한개 이상의 코스를 다녀서 졸업해도 됩니다.

아래 내용이 관련 policy 입니다.

More than one course

The Australian study requirement does not require visa applicants to have completed a single course of study of 2 academic years duration. Applicants may use study undertaken to complete more than one degree, diploma or trade qualification to meet the Australian study requirement. For the Graduate Work stream of the VC-485 visa each degree, diploma, or trade qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement must be closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation.

In this instance, the courses of study need not have been undertaken within a 24 month period. It is possible to have a break between completing the first course and commencing the second.

정리해 드리면 아래와 같아요.

한 개 이상 코스 다녀도 됩니다.
코스 연속될 필요 없습니다.
코스가 2개라고 할 때 (전자: 1년 + 1년 한국에 거주후 다시 입국 후자 1년) 이렇게 해도 됩니다.
단 두 코스는 나중에 코스를 마치고 지명할 직업군 occupation과 관련이 있는 코스이어야 합니다.

ASR의 기본 조건을 말씀드리오니 자세한 것은 코스를 정할 때 미리 자신의 직업군 및 기간 등 확인이 되어야 나중에 낭패가 없습니다.

어떤 분들은 코스를 마치고 기술심사를 하는데 있어서 애초에 어떤 직업군으로 기술심사 통과 자체가 안되는 경우가 있었습니다. 485비자를 그런 경우에 신청이 불가하죠 ㅠ

Last update: 2020년 11월 1일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

유비무환 – 영어성적은 졸업전 또는 EOI 제출전에 미리 준비해 둔다

최신이민정보 > 유비무환 – 영어성적은 졸업전 또는 EOI 제출전에 미리 준비해 둔다

절대 간과해서는 안되는 것이 바로 영어성적 확보를 미리 미리 해 두는 것입니다.

학생비자를 가지고 2년 / 3년 또는 4년간 공부를 하면서 485 비자를 위한 또는 기술심사를 위한 점수를 잘 확보해야 합니다. 코스를 잘 마치고 485 비자를 신청하는데 영어 성적이 준비가 안되어 또는 기술심사에 필요한 영어 성적이 준비가 안되어 다음 단계로 넘어가지 못하는 경우가 있습니다. 이것 정말 안타깝습니다. 다른 것은 내 노력으로 안됩니다. 예를들어 이민법이 나에게 유리하게 바뀌는 것이 내가 원한다고 안됩니다. 그 대신 내가 할 수 있는 것은 코스를 무사히 마치며 그리고 내 노력여하에 영어 성적 확보를 해 두는 것입니다. 너무 걱정이 이민법(?)에 두고 영어성적 확보를 못하여 다음 단계 진행이 안되면 신청인 입장에서 너무 안타까운 일이 아닐 수 없습니다.
2년간 요리 코스를 그리고 JRP 까지 다 마치고 영어 성적을 준비하지 못해서 190 비자를 신청하지 못한 케이스가 정말 발생한 경우도 있습니다. 정말 어렵사리 잘 와서 말이죠. 비자는 만기가 되어 가고 결국 호주를 떠나야 한다면 어쩔 수 없지만 다른 옵션이 없는 경우가 있사오니 신청인들이 해야 할 일은 미리 미리 준비해 두세요. 그리고 다른 것 (내 능력으로 안되는 관련 법은 하늘에 맡겨야 하지 않을까요?) 일단 나는 다 준비를 해 둔다 라는 마음 자세로 임하면 후회도 좀 적지 싶습니다.

그리고 JRP 가 아닌 방법으로 기술심사를 거쳐야 하는 분들도 미리 미리 준비를 해 놓으셔야 합니다.

모든 nomination 신청시 영어 성적 & 기술심사 확보를 기본으로 요구하기 때문입니다.

Ready-Set-Apply (Nomination 신청할 수 있는 자격이 된 분) 들과 Read-Set-Preparation (앗 기술심사 준비해야겠네) 하는 분들과는 천지 차이에요 ^__^

비내리는 호주 시드니에서

Last update: 2020년 10월 31일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철