1828845 (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 3297
•19 July 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
1828845 (Migration) [2021] AATA 3297
[2021] AATA 3297
19 July 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 187 Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, specifically under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to have a decision affirmed by the Tribunal, which had refused the approval of a nomination made by a business in respect of the applicant for the position of Workshop/Office Manager. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.233, which outlines the criteria for the nomination of a position for this visa subclass. This clause requires, among other things, that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, and that there is no adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons, or that such information is reasonable to disregard. A critical element of this clause is that the nomination must have been approved by the Minister.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the fact that the nomination made by the applicant's prospective employer had been refused by the Tribunal on 24 June 2021. As the nomination had not been approved, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not satisfy subclause 187.233(3), which mandates ministerial approval of the nomination. Consequently, the applicant failed to meet the overall requirements of clause 187.233. The Tribunal had provided the applicant with an opportunity to comment on this adverse information, but the applicant instead requested an extension of time due to illness. However, the Tribunal proceeded to make its decision based on the existing evidence.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 187 visa. This outcome was based on the applicant's failure to meet the essential requirement of having an approved nomination, which is a prerequisite for the Direct Entry stream of this visa subclass.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.233, which outlines the criteria for the nomination of a position for this visa subclass. This clause requires, among other things, that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, and that there is no adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons, or that such information is reasonable to disregard. A critical element of this clause is that the nomination must have been approved by the Minister.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the fact that the nomination made by the applicant's prospective employer had been refused by the Tribunal on 24 June 2021. As the nomination had not been approved, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not satisfy subclause 187.233(3), which mandates ministerial approval of the nomination. Consequently, the applicant failed to meet the overall requirements of clause 187.233. The Tribunal had provided the applicant with an opportunity to comment on this adverse information, but the applicant instead requested an extension of time due to illness. However, the Tribunal proceeded to make its decision based on the existing evidence.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 187 visa. This outcome was based on the applicant's failure to meet the essential requirement of having an approved nomination, which is a prerequisite for the Direct Entry stream of this visa subclass.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
1828845 (Migration) [2021] AATA 3297
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0