Dhaliwal (Migration)

[2021] AATA 4961

Dhaliwal (Migration) [2021] AATA 4961 (1 October 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Rajveer Kaur Dhaliwal
Mr Harmandeep Singh Dhaliwal

CASE NUMBER:  1834120

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/1534440

MEMBER:De-Anne Kelly

DATE:1 October 2021

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 01 October 2021 at 11:16am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Restaurant Manager – subject of an approved nomination – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 187.233, 187.311

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 Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 28 April 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 (Cth) (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 the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Restaurant Manager.

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 the application by Randhawas Group of Companies Pty Ltd as trustee for Randhawas Investment Trust was refused being the application referred to in cl.187.233(1).

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 September 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. This was a dual hearing of both the employer nomination refusal review and the visa application refusal review.

7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by lawyer Ms Suzanne Weel.

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) 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 reg 1.13A and reg 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 28 April 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. Mrs Nina Randhawa a Chief Executive Officer  of Randhawas Group of Companies Pty Ltd as trustee for Randhawas Investment Trust made the nomination and signed the Employment Contract demonstrating that she 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 Restaurant Manager on a salary of $56,843 per annum.

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 Mrs Nina Randhawa a Chief Executive Officer  of Randhawas Group of Companies Pty Ltd as trustee for Randhawas Investment Trust There is no information before the Tribunal constituting adverse information regarding Mr Talwinder Randhawa the director  of Randhawas Group of Companies Pty Ltd as trustee for Randhawas Investment Trust.

15. The most recent employment contract signed by both the nominator and the applicant demonstrate that the position is still available to the applicant. The visa application was made on 28 April 2017 and therefore was made no more than six months after the nomination of the position was approved.

16. Therefore, cl.187.233 is met.

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

18. The secondary visa applicant Mr Harmandeep Singh Dhaliwal had their visa application 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.

19. Because the primary visa applicant’s Subclass 187 visa application was refused, the secondary visa applicant 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.

20. 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 application to the Minister.

    DECISION

21. 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.