Dare to Love Pty Ltd (Migration)
Case
•
[2022] AATA 1681
•31 May 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Dare to Love Pty Ltd (Migration) [2022] AATA 1681
[2022] AATA 1681
31 May 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a review application concerning the refusal to grant Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)), to visa applicants nominated by Dare to Love Pty Ltd. The primary dispute revolved around whether the nominated occupation for Mr Harpreet Singh was the subject of an approved nomination, a prerequisite for the visa grant. The Tribunal also noted a separate issue regarding a review application lodged on behalf of Master Jaibir Singh, where no reviewable decision had been made at the time of lodgement.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa applicants met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the necessity of an approved nomination for the nominated occupation. The Tribunal also had to determine if it possessed jurisdiction to hear the review application concerning Master Jaibir Singh, given the absence of a reviewable decision.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the fact that the nomination in relation to Mr Harpreet Singh had previously been affirmed by the Tribunal on 14 December 2021, meaning it was not approved. The Tribunal had invited the review applicant to comment on this information, which was considered relevant to the visa grant requirements. As the review applicant did not respond to this invitation, nor to a separate invitation to attend a hearing, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision based on the available information. The Tribunal applied clause 457.223(4)(a), which mandates an approved nomination for the visa to be granted. Regarding Master Jaibir Singh, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction as no reviewable decision had been made prior to the review application being lodged.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants. The Tribunal also determined that it did not have jurisdiction in relation to Master Jaibir Singh.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa applicants met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the necessity of an approved nomination for the nominated occupation. The Tribunal also had to determine if it possessed jurisdiction to hear the review application concerning Master Jaibir Singh, given the absence of a reviewable decision.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the fact that the nomination in relation to Mr Harpreet Singh had previously been affirmed by the Tribunal on 14 December 2021, meaning it was not approved. The Tribunal had invited the review applicant to comment on this information, which was considered relevant to the visa grant requirements. As the review applicant did not respond to this invitation, nor to a separate invitation to attend a hearing, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision based on the available information. The Tribunal applied clause 457.223(4)(a), which mandates an approved nomination for the visa to be granted. Regarding Master Jaibir Singh, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction as no reviewable decision had been made prior to the review application being lodged.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants. The Tribunal also determined that it did not have jurisdiction in relation to Master Jaibir Singh.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Judicial Review
-
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