Arya (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3188

Arya (Migration) [2019] AATA 3188 (24 July 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Ajay Arya
Mrs Geeta Arya
Master Aadit Arya

CASE NUMBER:  1814056

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/1480688

MEMBER:Jane Bell

DATE:24 July 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

·cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 24 July 2019 at 11:27am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Café or Restaurant Manager – subject of an approved nomination – nomination application now approved by Tribunal – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 186.223

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 Home Affairs on 4 May 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 24 April 2017. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).

3. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 186 visa are set out in Part 186 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria. 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 Labour Agreement stream.

4. In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Café or Restaurant Manager (ANZSCO 141111).  

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223(2),and thus did not meet cl. 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations as a whole. This clause required, amongst other things, that the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination by an Australian employer, and the delegate found that the applicant’s employer, Hookens Pty Ltd, had its nomination of the applicant refused by the Department on 4 May 2018. The delegate also refused to grant subclass 186 visas to the second and third named applicants (the first named applicants wife and son) on the grounds that they did not meet the secondary visa criteria to be members of the family unit of a person who held a subclass 186 visa, and there was no evidence that they met the primary visa criteria in their own right.

6. The Tribunal received a review application from the applicants and applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 1 July 2019 to give evidence and present arguments.  

7. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in the present case is whether the relevant nomination has been approved.

   Nomination of a position

10. Clause 186.223 as applicable in this case is set out in full in the attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that the position to which the application relates is the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Temporary Residence Transition stream that identifies the visa applicant. 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.

11. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·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 (within the meaning of r.1.13A and r.1.13B); 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.

12. It is not disputed that the applicant’s employer, Hookens Pty Ltd, did not have an approved nomination in respect of the applicant at the time of the delegate’s decision.

13. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that Hookens Pty Ltd, lodged a review application with the Tribunal in relation to the refusal of its nomination of the applicant for the position of Café or Restaurant Manager, and that on 22 July 2019, the Tribunal set aside the Department’s refusal decision and substituted a decision to approve the nomination made by Hookens Pty Ltd.

14. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied on the available evidence which includes evidence given in relation to the nomination review case lodged by Hookens Pty Ltd that:

    ·Hookens Pty Ltd made the original nomination application in respect of the applicant, and that the employer continues to employ the applicant;

    ·the nomination has now been approved and has not been withdrawn;

    ·there is no ‘adverse information’ known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person ‘associated with’ that person (within the meaning of r.1.13A and r.1.13B); 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.

15. Therefore, cl.186.223 is met.

16. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

17. The delegate made a decision that the second and third named applicants did not satisfy cl.186.311, which requires that they are a member of the family unit of a person (the primary applicant) who holds a Subclass 186 visa granted on the basis of satisfying the primary criteria for the grant of the visa and having made a combined application with the primary applicant.

18. As the second and third applicants applied on the basis that they are members of the family unit of the applicant, their applications will be determined by reference to the outcome of the first-named applicant’s application on remittal to the Department for reconsideration.

    DECISION

19. The Tribunal remits the applications Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

    ·cl.186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Jane Bell
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    186.223(1)     The position to which the application relates is the position:

    (a)nominated in an application for approval that seeks to meet the requirements of subregulation 5.19(3); and

    (b)in relation to which the applicant is identified as the holder of a Subclass 457 … visa; and

    (c)in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114B(3)(d) of Schedule 1 was made in the application for the grant of the visa.

    (2)     The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (3)     The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (3A)    Either:

    (a)there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person associated with that person; or

    (b)it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person associated with that person.

    (4)     The position is still available to the applicant.

    (5)     The application for the visa is made no more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.