BRAR (Migration) - [2018] AATA 3573

BRAR (Migration) [2018] AATA 3573 (16 August 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Ms KAMALJIT KAUR BRAR
Mr GURTEJ SINGH
Master NIMRAT SINGH DHALIWAL
CASE NUMBER:  1700288
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2016/1660344
MEMBER:Cathrine Burnett-Wake
DATE:16 August 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.
Statement made on 16 August 2018 at 10:00am

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Requirement to be subject of an approved nomination – Applicant not subject of an approved nomination – Decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359A, 359C, 360(3), 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 186.223(2), cl 186.311
CASES
Singh v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 67

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 on 4 January 2017 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants applied for the visas on 6 May 2016. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).
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.
In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Arborist (ANZSCO 362212). This stream is designed for Subclass 457 visa holders who have worked for their employer for the past two years, and that employer has offered them a permanent position in the same occupation.
The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination lodged by the sponsor, Vincent Cirillo and Patricia Cirillo ATF Tiger Trust, was refused by the Department, as such, there was no approved nomination.
On 31 July 2018, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants pursuant to s.359A of the Act and provided particulars of information that it considered at the time would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the delegate's decision, and it invited the applicant to comment on or respond to the information.
The particulars of the information were that the application for review of the related nominated position, made by Vincent Cirillo and Patricia Cirillo ATF…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading BRAR (Migration)

Details

AGLC: BRAR (Migration) [2018] AATA 3573
Case: [2018] AATA 3573
Decision Date: 16 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186, under the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse to grant the visa. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination as required by clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the position to which the visa application relates must be the subject of an approved nomination application in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, identifying the visa applicant. Further requirements include that the nomination has not been withdrawn, there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons (or such information is reasonable to disregard), the position remains available, and the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal found that the company's nomination application had been refused by the Department, and a subsequent review application lodged with the Tribunal had been withdrawn. As the nomination application had not been approved, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria in clause 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 186 visa. Pursuant to clause 186.311, the Tribunal also affirmed the refusal of visas for the applicant's spouse and child, as they did not meet the secondary criteria for family members and had not demonstrated they met the primary criteria in their own right.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE The issue in the present case is whether there is an approved nomination.Nomination of a position 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. 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. The Company's nomination application was refused by the Department and although a review application was lodged with the Tribunal, this review application was withdrawn. The applicants failed to provide any response to, or comment on, this information. As the nomination application for the position to which the applicants Subclass 186 visa application relates has not been approved it follows that the applicant does not meet the criteria in cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Therefore, cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations is not met. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition 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 Temporary Residence Transition stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed. Pursuant to cl.186.311, the Tribunal must also affirm the decision to refuse to grant subclass 186 visas to the second, third named applicants (the applicant’s spouse and child) as they do not meet the secondary visa criteria to be members of the family unit of a person who holds a subclass 186 visa, and there is no evidence that they meet the primary criteria in their own right.DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.Cathrine Burnett-WakeMemberATTACHMENT A186.223(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.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Pursuant to cl.186.311, the Tribunal must also affirm the decision to refuse to grant subclass 186 visas to the second, third named applicants (the applicant’s spouse and child) as they do not meet the secondary visa criteria to be members of the family unit of a person who holds a subclass 186 visa, and there is no evidence that they meet the primary criteria in their own right.DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.Cathrine Burnett-WakeMemberATTACHMENT A186.223(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.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.