Abdullahi (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1774

Abdullahi (Migration) [2018] AATA 1774 (2 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Abdisalam Mohamud Abdullahi

CASE NUMBER:  1702000

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/2002781

MEMBER:Denise Connolly

DATE:2 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.

Statement made on 02 May 2018 at 12:41pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Requirement to be subject of an approved nomination – Applicant not subject of an approved nomination – Decision affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360, 360A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19(4), Schedule 2, cl 187.233(3)

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 and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 9 June 2016. 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 the applicant. 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 applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position Customer Service Manager (ANZSCO 149212). 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 visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the applicant is not the subject of an approved nomination.

6. The Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing scheduled for 2 May 2018 at 10am. The hearing invitation was sent to the applicant at the email address provided to the Tribunal in connection with the review.  The Tribunal also sent SMS text messages to the applicant, on 24 April and 1 May 2018, to remind him about the hearing, using the mobile number provided to the Tribunal. However the delivery of those messages failed. The Tribunal has not received a response to the hearing invitation and the applicant did not attend the hearing. Nor was there a request for a postponement of hearing.

7. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was invited to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments under s.360 of the Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was sent a notice under s.360A of the Act giving the day and the time on which he was scheduled to appear. The Tribunal is satisfied that the notice met all of the requirements of s.360A. The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the scheduled day, at the scheduled time. There was no request for a postponement of hearing.

8. Where an applicant is invited under s.360 to appear before the Tribunal and the applicant does not appear at the scheduled date and time, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before it. The applicant has not sought a postponement of hearing or provided any further evidence. The Tribunal will therefore not use its discretion to reschedule the applicant's appearance. The Tribunal will now proceed to make a decision on the review without taking further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before it.

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

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

Nomination of a position

1. 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). 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. In addition, where the associated nomination is made on or after 1 July 2017, the position must be the position in relation to which the applicant is identified in that nomination under r.5.19(4)(a)(ii).

2. 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; 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.

3. The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record. It records that on 15 December 2016 the nomination lodged by Saed Omar, being the nomination on which the applicant sought to rely, was refused by the delegate. Accordingly the delegate found the applicant does not meet the requirement that the nomination was approved: cl.187.233(3).

4. The applicant did not attend the hearing to provide his evidence and arguments as to why the delegate’s decision is wrong.  On the basis of the evidence before it the Tribunal finds the applicant was identified in a nomination for a position, Customer Service Manager, made by Saed Omar. It was on the basis of this nomination application that the applicant lodged his visa application.

5. For the applicant to succeed in this review, the associated nomination has to be approved. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the nomination has been approved. As the relevant nomination for the position has not been approved, the Tribunal finds that the requirement in cl.187.233(3) is not met. It follows that cl.187.233 is not met.

6. 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.

DECISION

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.

Denise Connolly
Member