Chaudhary (Migration)
Case
•
[2020] AATA 1197
•16 April 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Chaudhary (Migration) [2020] AATA 1197
[2020] AATA 1197
16 April 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The primary applicant sought the visa as a Retail Manager, supported by an approved nomination. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the primary applicant met the criteria for the visa grant, specifically clause 187.233.
The central legal issue was whether the applicants had satisfied the requirements of clause 187.233, which mandates, among other things, that the nominated position be the subject of an approved nomination, that the employer be the nominator, that the nomination has not been withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval. A further issue arose regarding the eligibility of the spouse of the primary applicant, who sought to be included in the visa grant.
The Tribunal considered the evidence and found that while the applicants met some aspects of clause 187.233, specifically that the employer was the nominator, a critical element was the approval of the nomination itself. The Tribunal noted that on 15 April 2020, it had decided to affirm a decision refusing the nomination under regulation 5.19. Consequently, the Tribunal informed the applicants that without an approved nomination, the primary applicant could not satisfy clause 187.233(3), rendering the visa applications unsuccessful. The applicants acknowledged this essential requirement.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas. As a consequence of the primary applicant not meeting the criteria for the visa, the Tribunal also found that the spouse, Ms Navritu Suman, did not satisfy clause 187.311, as she was not a member of the family unit of a person who held a subclass 187 visa granted on the basis of satisfying the primary criteria.
The central legal issue was whether the applicants had satisfied the requirements of clause 187.233, which mandates, among other things, that the nominated position be the subject of an approved nomination, that the employer be the nominator, that the nomination has not been withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval. A further issue arose regarding the eligibility of the spouse of the primary applicant, who sought to be included in the visa grant.
The Tribunal considered the evidence and found that while the applicants met some aspects of clause 187.233, specifically that the employer was the nominator, a critical element was the approval of the nomination itself. The Tribunal noted that on 15 April 2020, it had decided to affirm a decision refusing the nomination under regulation 5.19. Consequently, the Tribunal informed the applicants that without an approved nomination, the primary applicant could not satisfy clause 187.233(3), rendering the visa applications unsuccessful. The applicants acknowledged this essential requirement.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas. As a consequence of the primary applicant not meeting the criteria for the visa, the Tribunal also found that the spouse, Ms Navritu Suman, did not satisfy clause 187.311, as she was not a member of the family unit of a person who held a subclass 187 visa granted on the basis of satisfying the primary criteria.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Chaudhary (Migration) [2020] AATA 1197
Cases Citing This Decision
0