Devi (Migration)

Case

[2022] AATA 1006

8 March 2022


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Devi (Migration) [2022] AATA 1006 [2022] AATA 1006 8 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned applications for Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visas, Subclass 482, short-term stream, made by Mrs Jyoti Devi and Mr Raghu Deep. The applications were before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant, Mrs Jyoti Devi, met the requirements of clause 482.212(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause pertains to the requirement for an approved nomination, stipulating that the nomination must have been approved by a person who was an approved work sponsor at the time of approval and has not ceased.

The Tribunal found that the nominating employer, Six Fifty Pty Ltd, had initially had its nomination for the occupation of Cook refused by the Department. However, on review, the Tribunal had set aside the Department's decision and substituted a new decision to approve the nomination on 8 March 2022. The Tribunal was also satisfied that Six Fifty Pty Ltd was an approved standard business sponsor during the relevant period and that the approved nomination had not ceased. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant met the requirements of clause 482.212(1). The application by Mr Raghu Deep, as a member of the family unit, was to be determined by reference to the outcome of Mrs Devi's application.

The Tribunal remitted the applications for Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visas for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the first named applicant, Mrs Jyoti Devi, meets the criteria under clause 482.212(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Remedies

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0