AHMED (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 1996
•14 June 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
AHMED (Migration) [2018] AATA 1996
[2018] AATA 1996
14 June 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant's nominating employer, JAKS BODY REPAIRS Pty Ltd, had applied for approval of the nominated position of Office Manager in respect of the applicant. The Department had initially refused to approve the nomination, and the employer sought review of this decision before the Tribunal.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination, as required by clause 187.233 of the Regulations. This clause mandates that for Direct Entry stream applicants, the position must have been the subject of an approved nomination under the relevant regulations, and certain conditions must be met, including that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the employer's application for approval of the nomination had been refused by the Department. However, on review, the Tribunal set aside the Department's decision on 14 June 2018 and substituted a decision to approve the nomination under r.5.19(4). Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the criterion under cl.187.233 was met.
Given this finding, the Tribunal remitted the visa application for reconsideration by the Minister. The Tribunal directed that the applicant met the criteria under cl.187.223(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The applications of the second, third, and fourth named visa applicants, who were family members of the primary applicant, were also remitted for full reconsideration.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination, as required by clause 187.233 of the Regulations. This clause mandates that for Direct Entry stream applicants, the position must have been the subject of an approved nomination under the relevant regulations, and certain conditions must be met, including that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the employer's application for approval of the nomination had been refused by the Department. However, on review, the Tribunal set aside the Department's decision on 14 June 2018 and substituted a decision to approve the nomination under r.5.19(4). Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the criterion under cl.187.233 was met.
Given this finding, the Tribunal remitted the visa application for reconsideration by the Minister. The Tribunal directed that the applicant met the criteria under cl.187.223(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The applications of the second, third, and fourth named visa applicants, who were family members of the primary applicant, were also remitted for full reconsideration.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
AHMED (Migration) [2018] AATA 1996
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0