Aryan (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1009

Aryan (Migration) [2022] AATA 1009 (4 March 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Kiran Kumar Aryan

CASE NUMBER:  1831812

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2016/1941643

MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic

DATE:4 March 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 04 March 2022 at 8:59pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Office Manager – subject of an approved nomination – no response to s 359A invitation – Tribunal declined indefinite adjournment of decision – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359C, 360, 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 187.233

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 617

Kaur v Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 915
Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FMCA 28

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18

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

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 3 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 (Cth) (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 two alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, or the Direct Entry stream.

4. In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Office Manager.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the position to which the application relates had not been approved at the time of the delegate's decision.

6. The applicant applied for the review of the departments’ decision on 29 October 2018 and with the review application submitted a copy of the primary decision record.

7. By letter dated 17 February 2022, and in accordance with section 359A of the Act, the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on or respond to information that it considered would be the reasons, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.

   The particulars of the information were:

   ·Your visa application was refused by the Department on 10 October 2018, because the nomination mentioned in cl.187.233(3) has not been approved by the Department.

   ·The decision not to approve the nomination by AROMATIC HOME SERVICES PTY LTD was made by the Department on 11 September 2018.

   ·AROMATIC HOME SERVICES PTY LTD applied for review of this decision at this Tribunal on 29 September 2018.

   ·On 22 July 2021, the Tribunal affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse the nomination.

   This information, if accepted and relied upon by the Tribunal, would be the reason or
   part of the reason for the Tribunal to affirm the decision made by the Department to
   refuse you the grant of a subclass 187 visa. This is because one of the criteria
   contained within subclass 187, namely cl. 187.233(3) requires that the nomination has
   been approved by the Minister.

   You are invited to give comments on or respond to the above information in writing.

8. The invitation was sent to the applicant’s nominated address provided in connection with the review and advised that, if the comments on or response to information was not provided in writing by 3 March 2022, or if the request for extension of time to provide comments on or response to the information is not received by the Tribunal on or before 3 March 2022, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the comments on or response to information and the review applicant would lose any entitlement he might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

9. The review applicant has not provided comments on or response to information or requested an extension of time within the prescribed period. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.

10. The Tribunal has also considered whether it should adjourn the review under subsection 363(1)(b) of the Act to allow the applicant additional time in which to provide his comments on or response to information contained in the Tribunal’s letter of 17 February 2022.

11. In doing so, the Tribunal has considered the decisions in Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[1] and Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[2] where the Courts have held that the Tribunal is not required to indefinitely defer its decision-making processes. It has also had regard to the decision in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li[3] regarding the reasonableness of any request for an adjournment, and the Full Federal Court decision in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh[4] which considered this issue, as well as the more recent decision in Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[5] where analogous issues were discussed.

    [1] [2002] FCA 617

    [2] [2012] FMCA 28

    [3] [2013] HCA 18 (8 May 2013)

    [4] [2014] FCAFC 1 (4 February 2014)

    [5] [2014] FCA 915 (28 August 2014)

12. In this case the Tribunal wrote to the applicant under subsection 359A of the Act inviting him to provide comments and/or or response to the Tribunal letter of 17 February 2022. He has failed to do so.

13. The Tribunal has had regard to the fact that the visa application was refused by the Department on 10 October 2018 because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This clause inter alia requires that the Minister has approved the nomination. Accordingly, the applicant was aware of the reasons for the visa refusals for more than three years.

14. The Tribunal note that, if the applicant is not granted visa, he may be required to depart Australia. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers the applicant have had sufficient time in which to provide his comments on or response to information contained in the Tribunal’s letter of 17 February 2022. Accordingly, the Tribunal has decided not to exercise its discretion under subsection 363(1)(b) of the Act to adjourn the review any further. 

15. 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

16. Clause 187.233 as applicable in this case is set out in full in an attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration made as part of the current visa application. In addition, where the associated nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, it must identify the applicant in relation to the position.

17. 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 (within the meaning of reg 1.13A and reg 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.

18. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the appointment mentioned in subclause 187.233 lodged by AROMATIC HOME SERVICES PTY LTD on behalf of the applicant, has not been approved at the time of the Tribunal’s decision. As a result, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not meet the requirements of clause 187.233 at the time of its decision.

19. 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

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

    Antonio Dronjic
    Member

    
    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    187.233(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:

    (i)subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii); or

    (ii)subregulation 5.19(4) as in force before 1 July 2012; and

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

    (2)     The person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the nomination.

    (3)     The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (4)     The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (4A)    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.

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

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