AIR VYD PTY LTD (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 1253
•16 April 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
AIR VYD PTY LTD (Migration) [2018] AATA 1253
[2018] AATA 1253
16 April 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by AIR VYD PTY LTD against a decision to refuse a nomination for a position under the Direct Entry nomination stream. The applicant sought to nominate a position as a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme position.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria outlined in regulation 5.19(4)(h), which, for a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme position, requires certification from a regional certifying body.
The Tribunal found that the applicant was required to meet the second set of requirements under regulation 5.19(4)(h), which included obtaining advice from a regional certifying body located in the same State or Territory as the proposed position. The evidence before the Tribunal indicated that no such certification had been obtained by the applicant, nor was any provided when the Tribunal requested further information. As the applicant failed to provide evidence of meeting this crucial requirement, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h) were not met.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination, as the applicant had not satisfied the necessary criteria for approval under the Direct Entry nomination stream.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria outlined in regulation 5.19(4)(h), which, for a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme position, requires certification from a regional certifying body.
The Tribunal found that the applicant was required to meet the second set of requirements under regulation 5.19(4)(h), which included obtaining advice from a regional certifying body located in the same State or Territory as the proposed position. The evidence before the Tribunal indicated that no such certification had been obtained by the applicant, nor was any provided when the Tribunal requested further information. As the applicant failed to provide evidence of meeting this crucial requirement, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h) were not met.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination, as the applicant had not satisfied the necessary criteria for approval under the Direct Entry nomination stream.
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
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0