Didi (Migration)

Case

[2019] AATA 920

18 March 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Didi (Migration) [2019] AATA 920 [2019] AATA 920 18 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The applicant, a citizen of the Maldives, sought review of a decision to refuse the visa. The applicant had been nominated for the position of Customer Service Manager by Sunday International Health Development Pty Ltd.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination for the position as required by the visa criteria. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the nomination had been approved by the Minister and had not been subsequently withdrawn, and whether the position was still available to the applicant. The Tribunal also examined the requirements of Clause 187.233, which stipulated that the position must be located in regional Australia and be the subject of an approved nomination application.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not satisfied the essential criterion that the nomination for the position be approved. The Department had refused the nomination application on 9 March 2017, and this refusal was not the subject of a review application. Despite correspondence from the Tribunal inviting the applicant to provide information regarding an approved nomination or a pending review application, no such information was submitted. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had failed to meet the requirements for the visa in the Direct Entry stream.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Appeal

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0