1415529 (Migration)

[2015] AATA 3579

1415529 (Migration) [2015] AATA 3579 (29 October 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Gagandeep Singh Oberoi
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Oberoi
Master Arshkirat Singh Oberoi
Master Gurkirat Singh Oberoi

CASE NUMBER:  1415529

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2013/1906963

MEMBER:Rania Skaros

DATE:29 October 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.

Statement made on 29 October 2015 at 12:15pm

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied to the Department of Immigration for the visas on 20 November 2013. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).

3. The criteria for a Subclass 187 visa are set out in Part 187 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria. Applicants seeking to satisfy the primary criteria must meet the 'Common criteria', as well as the criteria of one of three alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the Direct Entry stream, or the Agreement stream.

4. In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Café or Restaurant Manager. The applicant was nominated by Shree Shakti Pty Ltd.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination was not approved.

6. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

7. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.187.233.

   Nomination of a position

9. For applicants in the Direct Entry stream, cl.187.233 requires that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nominated position under r.5.19(4)(h)(ii) of the Regulations (that is, a Direct Entry nomination in regional Australia), or under r.5.19(4) as it was prior to 1 July 2012 (that is, a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme nomination).  The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration that was required to be made as part of the current visa application.

10. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·the person who will employ the applicant was the nominator in the application for approval

    ·the nomination has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn

    ·the position is still available to the applicant, and

    ·the visa application was made no more than six months after the nomination of the position was approved.

11. On 8 October 2015 the Tribunal affirmed the decision refusing the approval of the nomination of an appointment made by Shree Shakti Pty Ltd in respect of the applicant.

12. On 12 October 2015 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(A) of the Act. The letter invited the applicant to comment on or respond to information which the Tribunal considered would, subject to his comments or response, be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.  The information related to the Tribunal’s decision to affirm the decision not to approve the nomination made by Shree Shakti Pty Ltd which the Tribunal explained was relevant to him meeting cl.187.233(3) which requires the nomination to be approved.

13. The invitation was sent to the authorised representative at last email address provided in connection with the review and advised that, if the comments were not provided in writing by 26 October 2015, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the comments and the review applicants would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

14. The review applicants have not provided the comments within the prescribed period and no extension has been granted. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the review applicants are not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40. The Tribunal has decided to proceed to decision without taking further steps to obtain the comments.

15. As the nomination made by Shree Shakti Pty Ltd for the position has not been approved the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not meet cl.187.233(3). Therefore, cl.187.233 is not met.

16. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. No claims have been made in respect of the other visa streams.  As the requirements that must be met by a person seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.

17. As the primary visa applicant does not satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of the visa, the Tribunal finds that the secondary applicants do not satisfy cl.187.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and affirms the decision in relation to them.

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.

    Rania Skaros
    Member