1504557 (Migration)
Case
•
[2016] AATA 4002
•29 April 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
1504557 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4002
[2016] AATA 4002
29 April 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 187 (Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN)) visa in the Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to have the decision of the Department, which refused to grant the visa, set aside. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was an approved nominated position in respect of the applicant, as required by clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that for the Direct Entry stream, the position must be the subject of an approved nomination, the employer who made the nomination must be the one who will employ the applicant, the nomination must not have been withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons (or such information must be disregarded), the position must remain available, and the visa application must be made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the application for approval of the nominated position made by the applicant's sponsoring employer, Leonti Investments Pty. Ltd., was refused by the Department on 8 December 2014, and this decision was affirmed on review by the Tribunal on 8 April 2016. As the applicant provided no evidence of an approved appointment by Leonti Investments Pty. Ltd., the Tribunal was not satisfied that an approved nominated position existed in relation to the applicant at the time of its decision. Consequently, clause 187.233 was not met. The Tribunal also considered the secondary applicants, who were the partner and children of the primary applicant. It found that as the primary applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the visa, the secondary applicants also failed to meet clause 187.311, which requires them to be members of the family unit of a person who has satisfied the primary criteria and holds the visa.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was an approved nominated position in respect of the applicant, as required by clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that for the Direct Entry stream, the position must be the subject of an approved nomination, the employer who made the nomination must be the one who will employ the applicant, the nomination must not have been withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons (or such information must be disregarded), the position must remain available, and the visa application must be made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the application for approval of the nominated position made by the applicant's sponsoring employer, Leonti Investments Pty. Ltd., was refused by the Department on 8 December 2014, and this decision was affirmed on review by the Tribunal on 8 April 2016. As the applicant provided no evidence of an approved appointment by Leonti Investments Pty. Ltd., the Tribunal was not satisfied that an approved nominated position existed in relation to the applicant at the time of its decision. Consequently, clause 187.233 was not met. The Tribunal also considered the secondary applicants, who were the partner and children of the primary applicant. It found that as the primary applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the visa, the secondary applicants also failed to meet clause 187.311, which requires them to be members of the family unit of a person who has satisfied the primary criteria and holds the visa.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
1504557 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4002
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2002] FCA 617
Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2012] FMCA 28