Dhindsa (Migration)

[2020] AATA 47

Dhindsa (Migration) [2020] AATA 47 (7 January 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Supreet Dhindsa

CASE NUMBER:  1802489

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2016/3074104

MEMBER:Karen McNamara

DATE:7 January 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.

Statement made on 07 January 2020 at 12:23pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – employer’s position nomination refused – refusal affirmed by tribunal – no approved nomination – no response to tribunal’s s 359A letter – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359A, 359C, 360(3), 363A

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 187.233(3)

CASE

Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

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 applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 15 September 2016. 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, Mr Supreet Dhindsa (the applicant) is seeking the visa in Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Carpenter (ANZSCO 331212).

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because on 1 December 2017, the nomination lodged by Urban Estate Constructions Pty Ltd, was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.

6. The applicant lodged an application for review with the Tribunal on 31 January 2018.

7. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 29 October 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the nominator, Mr Ammar Khan and Mr Ravinder Ravi a former employee of the nominator. 

8. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.187.233.

    Nomination of a position

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. On the 5 December 2019, the Tribunal affirmed the decision refusing the approval of the nomination made by Urban Estate Constructions Pty Ltd, in respect of the applicant.  As the nomination has been refused, regulation 187.233(3) is not met.

14. On 6 December 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(A) of the Act (dispatched by email to the authorised recipient). The letter invited the applicant to comment on or respond to, information which the Tribunal considered would, subject to their comments or response, be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.  The information related to the Tribunal’s decision to affirm the decision not to approve the nomination made by Urban Estate Constructions Pty Ltd, which the Tribunal explained was relevant to Mr Dhindsa meeting cl.187.233(3) which requires the nomination to be approved. As the nomination has been refused, regulation 187.233(3) is not met.

15. The invitation was sent to the last address provided in connection with the review and advised that, if the comments or response were not provided in writing by 20 December 2019, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the comments and the review applicant would lose any entitlement he may otherwise have had under the Act.

16. The review applicant has not provided the comments within the prescribed period and no extension has been granted. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40. The Tribunal has decided to proceed to decision without taking further steps to obtain the comments.

17. Having considered the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy cl 187.233(3).

18. As such, the applicant does not meet an essential criterion for the grant of a subclass 187 visa. Therefore, cl.187.233 is not met.

19. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. No claims have been made in respect of the other visa streams. As the requirements that must be met by a person seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

20. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.

    Karen McNamara
    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.