Gharu (Migration)

Case

[2022] AATA 4536

4 November 2022


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Gharu (Migration) [2022] AATA 4536 [2022] AATA 4536 4 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by Mr Gharu for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal, presided over by Member Amanda Mendes Da Costa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause outlines the criteria for a nominated position in the Direct Entry stream, including that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination, located in regional Australia, and identified in relation to the applicant. Further requirements include that the nominator must be the prospective employer, the nomination must have been approved and not withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to Immigration, the position must remain available, and the visa application must be made within six months of the nomination approval.

The Tribunal found that the application for approval of the nominated position by CYBENE TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD had been refused by a delegate of the Minister, and this decision was affirmed on review by the Tribunal. As there was no evidence of an approved nomination by another sponsor, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the specified position was the subject of an approved nomination, thus failing to meet cl 187.233. Consequently, as the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Direct Entry stream and had not met these requirements, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Jurisdiction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

4

Statutory Material Cited

0