DE CARVALHO LEITE (Migration)
Case
•
[2020] AATA 309
•11 February 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
DE CARVALHO LEITE (Migration) [2020] AATA 309
[2020] AATA 309
11 February 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream, for a Sports Development Officer. The applicant's nomination had been approved by the Tribunal, and the decision under review was whether the applicant met the relevant criteria for the visa.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the regulations. This clause, as applicable, required that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination that had not been withdrawn, and that the applicant be identified in relation to the position if the nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017. Further, it stipulated that the employer making the nomination must be the person who would employ the applicant, that there be no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, or that such information be reasonable to disregard, that the position remain available to the applicant, and that the visa application be made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the applicant met clause 187.233. It noted that the nomination was made by the owner and director of Just Futsal NSW Pty Ltd, who was also the prospective employer, for the position of Sports Development Officer. The Tribunal had previously set aside the Department's refusal and substituted a decision to approve the nomination. There was no adverse information concerning the nominator, the position remained available as evidenced by the employment contract, and the visa application was made within the six-month timeframe after the nomination's approval.
Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the primary applicant's visa application to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining criteria. The Tribunal also remitted the secondary applicants' visa applications for reconsideration.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the regulations. This clause, as applicable, required that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination that had not been withdrawn, and that the applicant be identified in relation to the position if the nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017. Further, it stipulated that the employer making the nomination must be the person who would employ the applicant, that there be no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, or that such information be reasonable to disregard, that the position remain available to the applicant, and that the visa application be made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the applicant met clause 187.233. It noted that the nomination was made by the owner and director of Just Futsal NSW Pty Ltd, who was also the prospective employer, for the position of Sports Development Officer. The Tribunal had previously set aside the Department's refusal and substituted a decision to approve the nomination. There was no adverse information concerning the nominator, the position remained available as evidenced by the employment contract, and the visa application was made within the six-month timeframe after the nomination's approval.
Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the primary applicant's visa application to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining criteria. The Tribunal also remitted the secondary applicants' visa applications for reconsideration.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0