Deepak Kamboj (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 5899
•30 October 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Deepak Kamboj (Migration) [2019] AATA 5899
[2019] AATA 5899
30 October 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, made by Mr Deepak Kamboj. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically clause 187.233(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The central legal issue was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirement that the Minister had approved the nomination for the position specified in the visa application. This criterion is a mandatory requirement for the grant of a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. The Tribunal had previously affirmed a decision to refuse the employer nomination itself, on the basis that the nominator failed to satisfy regulation 5.19(4) of the Regulations.
The Tribunal reasoned that because the employer nomination had not been approved and had been affirmed as refused, there was no approved nomination to satisfy clause 187.233(3). Consequently, the applicant did not meet this essential criterion for the visa. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to proceed with a decision on the visa application, having advised the applicant of the implications of the affirmed nomination refusal.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, as the applicant had failed to meet the mandatory criteria for the visa.
The central legal issue was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirement that the Minister had approved the nomination for the position specified in the visa application. This criterion is a mandatory requirement for the grant of a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. The Tribunal had previously affirmed a decision to refuse the employer nomination itself, on the basis that the nominator failed to satisfy regulation 5.19(4) of the Regulations.
The Tribunal reasoned that because the employer nomination had not been approved and had been affirmed as refused, there was no approved nomination to satisfy clause 187.233(3). Consequently, the applicant did not meet this essential criterion for the visa. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to proceed with a decision on the visa application, having advised the applicant of the implications of the affirmed nomination refusal.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, as the applicant had failed to meet the mandatory criteria for the visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0