Chauhan (Migration)
Case
•
[2020] AATA 5673
•26 November 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Chauhan (Migration) [2020] AATA 5673
[2020] AATA 5673
26 November 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the applications of Mr and Mrs Chauhan for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas, subclass 187, Direct Entry stream. The dispute centred on whether the applicants met the criteria for the visa, specifically concerning the nomination for the position of Sales and Marketing Manager.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants satisfied clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations, which outlines the requirements for the nominated position and the approval of the nomination. This included whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination, whether the nominator was the intended employer, and whether the nomination had been approved and not withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered the timing of the visa application relative to the nomination approval and the presence of any adverse information concerning the nominator.
The Tribunal reasoned that the Department had refused to approve the nomination for the position, and this decision had not been reviewed by the nominator. Clause 187.233(3) mandates that the Minister must have approved the nomination. As this fundamental requirement was not met, the primary applicant could not satisfy the primary criteria for the visa. The Tribunal noted that a subsequent or different nomination could not satisfy this requirement, citing relevant case law. Consequently, as the primary applicant failed to meet the primary criteria, the secondary applicant, as a member of the family unit, could not satisfy the secondary criteria.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas to the applicants.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants satisfied clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations, which outlines the requirements for the nominated position and the approval of the nomination. This included whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination, whether the nominator was the intended employer, and whether the nomination had been approved and not withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered the timing of the visa application relative to the nomination approval and the presence of any adverse information concerning the nominator.
The Tribunal reasoned that the Department had refused to approve the nomination for the position, and this decision had not been reviewed by the nominator. Clause 187.233(3) mandates that the Minister must have approved the nomination. As this fundamental requirement was not met, the primary applicant could not satisfy the primary criteria for the visa. The Tribunal noted that a subsequent or different nomination could not satisfy this requirement, citing relevant case law. Consequently, as the primary applicant failed to meet the primary criteria, the secondary applicant, as a member of the family unit, could not satisfy the secondary criteria.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas to the applicants.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Chauhan (Migration) [2020] AATA 5673
Cases Citing This Decision
0