Avanpreet Singh (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3867

Avanpreet Singh (Migration) [2018] AATA 3867 (20 September 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Avanpreet Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1612358

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2015/2627759

MEMBER:Denise Connolly

DATE:20 September 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 20 September 2018 at 11:54am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – direct entry scheme – Tribunal affirmed nomination refusal – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19 Schedule 2 cl 187.233

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

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 9 September 2015. 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 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by the applicant. 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 Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Retail Manager.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet cl.187.233(3) because the nomination application lodged by Dreamchasers Pty Ltd ATF Serendipity Unit Trust, referred to in the visa application, was refused.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 2 August 2018 to give evidence and present arguments.

7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

8. 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

9. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is the subject of an approved nomination. 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.

10. 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 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.

11. The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record. It records that the nominator Dreamchasers Pty Ltd ATF Serendipity Unit Trust lodged an application for approval of a nomination. The nomination application was refused on 10 June 2016. The delegate in this case concluded therefore that the applicant does not meet cl.187.233(3) which requires that the Minister has approved the relevant nomination.

12. Dreamchasers Pty Ltd ATF Serendipity Unit Trust sought review of the decision to refuse the nomination. The Tribunal combined the hearings for the nominator and the applicant. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that if it affirmed the decision to refuse to approve the nomination, the applicant would not meet the requirement that the nomination has been approved. It explained that, in those circumstances, it would write to the applicant seeking his comments or response. He indicated he understood.

13. On 28 August 2018 the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse to approve nomination application, made by Dreamchasers Pty Ltd ATF Serendipity Unit Trust, for approval of a nomination in the Direct Entry stream.

14. On 4 September 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant under s.359A inviting his comments on, or response to, the information that on 28 August 2018 the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse to approve the nomination application made by Dreamchasers Pty Ltd ATF Serendipity Unit Trust. The Tribunal explained that this information is relevant because if relied on the Tribunal would find that the applicant does not meet cl.187.233(3) and it would affirm the Department’s decision. The response was due on 18 September 2018.

15. On 18 September 2018 the applicant’s representative wrote to inform the Tribunal that he was no longer acting for the applicant. However he confirmed that he had forwarded to the applicant the s.359A invitation.

16. On 19 September 2018 another representative advised the Tribunal that he had been authorised to act for the applicant. 

17. The applicant has not sought an extension to provide his response and/or comments. No further information has been provided.  In these circumstances the Tribunal will proceed to make its decision on the evidence before it.

18. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the nomination made by Dreamchasers Pty Ltd ATF Serendipity Unit Trust, the nomination referred to in cl.187.233(1), has been refused. Therefore the nomination has not been approved and cl.187.233(3) is not met.

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.

    Denise Connolly
    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.