Australia Here We Come Pty Ltd (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 1931
•5 April 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Australia Here We Come Pty Ltd (Migration) [2018] AATA 1931
[2018] AATA 1931
5 April 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered an application by Australia Here We Come Pty Ltd (Migration) concerning the refusal of a nomination for a Subclass 457 visa. The core of the dispute was whether the nominated occupation, "Legal Executive 599112," met the requirements of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant had satisfied the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically whether the nominated occupation and its associated code corresponded to an occupation and code specified in the relevant legislative instrument, IMMI 17/060, as required by subclause 2.72(10)(aa) of the Migration Regulations.
The Tribunal found that the nominated occupation, "Legal Executive 599112," had been removed from the list of eligible skilled occupations in IMMI 17/060, which was the applicable instrument for nominations made before 1 July 2017. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the nominated occupation and its code did not correspond to an occupation and code specified in the relevant instrument, meaning the requirements of subclause 2.72(10)(aa) were not met. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination.
The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant had satisfied the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically whether the nominated occupation and its associated code corresponded to an occupation and code specified in the relevant legislative instrument, IMMI 17/060, as required by subclause 2.72(10)(aa) of the Migration Regulations.
The Tribunal found that the nominated occupation, "Legal Executive 599112," had been removed from the list of eligible skilled occupations in IMMI 17/060, which was the applicable instrument for nominations made before 1 July 2017. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the nominated occupation and its code did not correspond to an occupation and code specified in the relevant instrument, meaning the requirements of subclause 2.72(10)(aa) were not met. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0