COHEN ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 508
•9 March 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
COHEN ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED (Migration) [2018] AATA 508
[2018] AATA 508
9 March 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by Cohen Enterprises Pty Limited against a decision to refuse its nomination for an "Office Manager" position under the Direct Entry stream of the subclass RN 187 visa. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the nominator met the requirements for approval of the nomination as set out in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Cohen Enterprises Pty Limited had demonstrated a genuine need to employ a paid employee for the nominated position under its direct control, as required by regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B). This also involved considering whether the nominated position could be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident living in the same local area, and whether a Regional Certifying Body had advised on these matters.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination. It found that the nominator had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a genuine need for the nominated position. Furthermore, the Regional Certifying Body had advised that the position could be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident, and that the occupation was not identified as a shortage or recruitment difficulty in the Central Coast region. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4), specifically the need for a paid employee and the inability to fill the position locally.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Cohen Enterprises Pty Limited had demonstrated a genuine need to employ a paid employee for the nominated position under its direct control, as required by regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B). This also involved considering whether the nominated position could be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident living in the same local area, and whether a Regional Certifying Body had advised on these matters.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination. It found that the nominator had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a genuine need for the nominated position. Furthermore, the Regional Certifying Body had advised that the position could be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident, and that the occupation was not identified as a shortage or recruitment difficulty in the Central Coast region. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4), specifically the need for a paid employee and the inability to fill the position locally.
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
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2002] FCA 617
Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2012] FMCA 28
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li
[2013] HCA 18