DE CARVALHO LEITE (Migration)

[2020] AATA 309

DE CARVALHO LEITE (Migration) [2020] AATA 309 (11 February 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Vinicius DE CARVALHO LEITE
Ms Talita Roberta DA SILVA MENDES LEITE

CASE NUMBER:  1730991

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/1007135

MEMBER:De-Anne Kelly

DATE:11 February 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:

·cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 11 February 2020 at 4:05pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Sports Development Officer – subject of an approved nomination – nomination now approved by the Tribunal – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 187.233

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 14 March 2017. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).

3. The criteria for a Subclass 187 visa are set out in Part 187 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 two alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, or the Direct Entry stream.

4. In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Sports Development Officer.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because a delegate of the Minister refused the employer nomination of Just Futsal NSW Pty Ltd being the application referred to in cl.187.233(1).

6. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 6 February 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. This was a joint hearing of both the employer nomination refusal review and the visa application refusal review.

7. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets cl.187.233(3) of the regulations which provides as follows;

   (3)      The Minister has approved the nomination.

   Nomination of a position

10. Clause 187.233 as applicable in this case is set out in full in an attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration made as part of the current visa application. In addition, where the associated nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, it must identify the applicant in relation to the position.

11. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made nomination

    ·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.

12. The visa application was acknowledged by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection on 14 March 2017, and is consistent with the declaration in cl.1114B(3)(d) of Schedule 1 to the Regulations being made in the application for the grant of the visa.

13. Mr Igor Olivera de Sao Jose, the owner and director of Just Futsal NSW Pty Ltd made the nomination and signed the Employment Contract demonstrating that he is the person who will employ the applicant and is the person who made the nomination. The application made was for the approval of the position of Sports Development Officer ANZSCO 452321.

14. The Department refused to approve the nomination and the nominating employer applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision. The Tribunal set aside the Department’s decision and substituted a decision to approve the nomination in respect of the applicant. The nomination has therefore been approved and has not been withdrawn by Mr Igor Olivera de Sao Jose, the owner and director of Just Futsal NSW Pty Ltd.

15. There is no information before the Tribunal constituting adverse information regarding Mr Igor Olivera de Sao Jose, the owner and director of Just Futsal NSW Pty Ltd.

16. The most recent employment contract dated 12 March 2017 and signed by both the nominator and the applicant demonstrate that the position is still available to the applicant. The visa application was made on 14 March 2017 and therefore was made no more than six months after the nomination of the position was approved.

17. Therefore, cl.187.233 is met.

18. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

19. The secondary visa applicants Ms Talita Roberta Da Silva Mendes Leite had her visa applications refused by a delegate of the Minister on the basis that cl.187.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations was not satisfied. This clause provides that:

    187.311

    The applicant:

    (a) is a member of the family unit of a person (the primary applicant) who holds a Subclass 187 visa granted on the basis of satisfying the primary criteria for the grant of the visa; and

    (b) made a combined application with the primary applicant.

20. Because the primary visa applicant’s Subclass 187 visa application was refused, the secondary visa applicants was a member of the family unit of a person who did not hold a Subclass 187 visa granted on the basis of satisfying the primary criteria for the grant of the visa.

21. The Tribunal considered the appropriate course was to remit the primary visa applicant’s visa application to the Minister to reconsider the remaining criteria for the visa. The Tribunal considers it is the appropriate course to remit the secondary applicants’ visa applications to the Minister.

    DECISION

22. The Tribunal remits the applications Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:

    ·cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    De-Anne Kelly
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    187.233(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:

    (i)subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii); or

    (ii)subregulation 5.19(4) as in force before 1 July 2012; and

    (b)in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114C(3)(d) of Schedule 1 was made in the application for the grant of the visa.

    (2)     The person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the nomination.

    (3)     The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (4)     The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (4A)    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.

    (5)     The position is still available to the applicant.

    (6)     The application for the visa is made no more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.