Amandeep Kaur (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 3044
•27 May 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Amandeep Kaur (Migration) [2019] AATA 3044
[2019] AATA 3044
27 May 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned a review of a decision to refuse the approval of a nomination application made by Black Pepper Investments Pty Ltd ATF Deen Unit Trust, in respect of the applicant, Amandeep Kaur. The application was for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The Tribunal, presided over by Karen McNamara, was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination, a prerequisite for the visa application under clause 187.233(3), had been approved and not subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had responded to information provided by the Tribunal that indicated the decision under review would be affirmed.
The Tribunal reasoned that clause 187.233(3) requires an approved nomination. As the nomination application had been refused on 7 May 2019, this criterion was not met. Subsequently, on 8 May 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, pursuant to section 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), inviting comments on the information that would lead to the affirmation of the decision. This letter was dispatched by email to the applicant's authorised recipient and advised that a decision might be made without further comment if no response was received by 22 May 2019. The applicant failed to provide the requested comments within the prescribed period, and no extension was granted. In these circumstances, the Tribunal applied section 359C of the Act, which, read with section 360(3), meant the applicant was not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the approval of the nomination.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination, a prerequisite for the visa application under clause 187.233(3), had been approved and not subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had responded to information provided by the Tribunal that indicated the decision under review would be affirmed.
The Tribunal reasoned that clause 187.233(3) requires an approved nomination. As the nomination application had been refused on 7 May 2019, this criterion was not met. Subsequently, on 8 May 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, pursuant to section 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), inviting comments on the information that would lead to the affirmation of the decision. This letter was dispatched by email to the applicant's authorised recipient and advised that a decision might be made without further comment if no response was received by 22 May 2019. The applicant failed to provide the requested comments within the prescribed period, and no extension was granted. In these circumstances, the Tribunal applied section 359C of the Act, which, read with section 360(3), meant the applicant was not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the approval of the nomination.
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
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0