Bhandari (Migration)
[2018] AATA 2626
•26 July 2018
Bhandari (Migration) [2018] AATA 2626 (26 July 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Mr Amandeep BHANDARI
CASE NUMBER: 1701608
DIBP REFERENCE(S): BCC2016/565996
MEMBER:Mark Bishop
DATE:26 July 2018
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:
·cl.187.233(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and
·cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
Statement made on 26 July 2018 at 10:42am
CATCHWORDS
Migration – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Requirement to be subject of an approved nomination – Nomination previously refused by delegate – Nomination subsequently approved by Tribunal – Decision remitted with directionLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19(4), Schedule 2, cls 187.223(1), 187.233(3)STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
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).
The applicant applied for the visa on 8 February 2016. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).
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 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 Agreement stream.
In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Cook (ANZSCO 351411) This stream is designed for persons who have never, or have only briefly worked in the Australian labour market and are applying for the visa outside Australia, or are applying from inside Australia but are not eligible for the Temporary Residence Transition stream.
The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because a nomination lodged by Jagvir Gill ATF Gill Family Trust was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 24 January 2014.
The Tribunal determined the matter on the papers.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Nomination of a position
For applicants in the Direct Entry stream, cl.187.233 requires that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nominated position under r.5.19(4)(h)(ii) of the Regulations (that is, a Direct Entry nomination in regional Australia), or under r.5.19(4) as it was prior to 1 July 2012 (that is, a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme nomination). 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. In addition, where the associated nomination is made on or after 1 July 2017, the position must be the position in relation to which the applicant is identified in that nomination under r.5.19(4)(a)(ii).
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.
On 6 April 2018 the nomination lodged by Jagvir Gill ATF Gill Family Trust of the nominee (Amandeep BHANDARI) was approved.
Therefore, cl.187.233 is met.
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH
Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:
·cl.187.233(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and
·cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Mark Bishop
Member
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
0
0
0