Gill (Migration)

[2020] AATA 4249

Gill (Migration) [2020] AATA 4249 (5 October 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Rajwinder Kaur Gill
Mr Dalbir Singh
Miss Arshpreet Kaur Gill
Miss Vishavjeet Gill

CASE NUMBER:  1821188

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/2329283

MEMBER:Michelle East

DATE:5 October 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

·cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 05 October 2020 at 2:48pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – approval of nomination – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Hairdresser – refusal approved after tribunal review – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 186.223, rr 1.13A, 1.13B, 5.19(3)

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 on 6 July 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 30 June 2017. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).

3. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 186 visa are set out in Part 186 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 three alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the Direct Entry stream, or the Labour Agreement stream.

4. In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Hairdresser.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination in relation to the application was not approved.

6. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

7. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The issue in the present case is whether the relevant nomination has been approved.

   Nomination of a position

9. Clause 186.223 as applicable in this case is set out in full in the attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that the position to which the application relates is the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Temporary Residence Transition stream that identifies the visa applicant. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration that was required to be made as part of the current visa application.

10. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·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.

11. The applicant’s nominating employer, Unique Hair and Beauty Salon Pty Ltd applied to the Department for approval of the position of a Hairdresser.  The Department refused to approve the nomination and the nominating employer applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

12. On 5 October 2020, this Tribunal set aside the Department’s decision and substituted a decision to approve the nomination under r.5.19(3).

13. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that:

    -The position is the same one as was the subject of the r.5.19(3) nomination application, the applicant was identified as the Subclass 457 visa holder in the nomination, and the position is the same as that in the visa application declaration.

    -The nomination has been approved.

    -The nomination has not since been 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).

    -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.

14. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant meets cl.186.223.

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

    DECISION

16. The Tribunal remits the applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

    ·cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Michelle East
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    186.223(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 subregulation 5.19(3); and

    (b)in relation to which the applicant is identified as the holder of a Subclass 457 … visa; and

    (c)in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114B(3)(d) of Schedule 1 was made in the application for the grant of the visa.

    (2)     The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (3)     The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (3A)    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.

    (4)     The position is still available to the applicant.

    (5)     The application for the visa is made no more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.