1506587 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 4363

1506587 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4363 (12 September 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr ANDREA FRAILIS
Ms DEBORAH IEIRI

CASE NUMBER:  1506587

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2014/3190888

MEMBER:Denise Connolly

DATE:12 September 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:

·cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 12 September 2016 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 25 November 2014. 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 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 Catering Manager. This stream is designed for persons who have never, or have only briefly worked in the Australian labour market and are applying for the visa outside Australia, or are applying from inside Australia but are not eligible for the Temporary Residence Transition stream.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicant did not meet cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination in relation to the applicant had been refused.

6. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 11 August 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received evidence from the nominating employer.

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

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

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

   Nomination of a position

10. 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.

11. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made nomination

    ·the nomination has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn

    ·there is no ‘adverse information’ known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person ‘associated with’ that person (within the meaning of r.1.13A and r.1.13B); or it is reasonable to disregard any such information

    ·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.

12. The applicant was nominated by Rendberg Pty Ltd ATF The Rendberg Unit Trust for the position of Catering Manager. The position is the same as in the r.5.19 nomination application and the employer is the nominator.

13. The nomination was initially refused by the Department, however, on 12 September 2016, this Tribunal made a decision to set aside the refusal and substituted a decision approving the nomination.

14. The Tribunal is satisfied that the nomination has not been withdrawn and that the position is still available to the applicant.  The Tribunal is also satisfied that the visa application was not made more than six months after the nomination of the position was approved.

15. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that there is any relevant adverse information known to the Department. The Tribunal is satisfied there is no adverse information, within the meaning r.1.13A, known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator.

16. Given the above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant meets all the requirements of cl.187.233.

17. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal remits the applications Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:

    ·cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Denise Connolly
    A/g Senior Member