Gogna (Migration)

Gogna (Migration) [2020] AATA 4472 (21 October 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Mrs Parneet Kaur Gogna
Mr Parmanand Lutchmanah
CASE NUMBER:  1900110
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/1429872
MEMBER:Warren Stooke AM
DATE:21 October 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.

Statement made on 21 October 2020 at 11:08am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Cook – subject of an approved nomination – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 186.223, 186.311

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 14 December 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants applied for the visas on 27 March 2018. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).
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.
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 Cook – ANZSCO Code: 351411.
The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicant did not meet cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the applicants have not satisfied the criteria for the grant of an Employer Nomination Scheme (subclass 186) visa, including an approved nominated sponsor.
On 30 September 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, inviting the applicant to comment on information that it considered would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. That information was that the first named applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination as required by cl.186.223 of the Regulations. The Tribunal explained to the applicants that this information was relevant to the review because if the first named applicant did not meet the requirements of cl.186.223, he did not meet the requirements for the grant of the visa.
The invitation advised that, if the comments were not provided in writing by 14 October 2020, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the comments and the applicants would lose any entitlements they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.
On 12 October 2020, the applicant provided a response to the Tribunal’s correspondence of 30 September 2020.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 20 October 2020 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant confirmed to the Tribunal that she had provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision with her application.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issues in the present case are whether the first named applicant is the subject of an approved nomination and whether the second named applicant meets the criteria for the visa as a member of the family unit of a person who has satisfied the primary criteria for the grant of the visa.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the Minister must be satisfied that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of cl.186.223 to be granted a 186 visa.
The Tribunal asked the applicant: “Do you have a nomination approved by the Minister?”
The applicant replied: “No, not in this case.”
The applicant stated to the Tribunal that she had done whatever her employer asked her to do and that the employer had told her to trust them and they would help the applicant.
The applicant stated: “they should have helped me”.
The applicant also gave evidence that this was not the first time this had happened to her, with a similar experience in 2012, where the employer did not support the application with all the documentation.
The applicant provided the Tribunal with a response on 12 October 2020 to the Tribunal invitation pursuant to 359A for comment, which outlined the background to the applicant’s application and employment.
The Tribunal informed the applicant that the Tribunal does not have discretion in relation to the application before the Tribunal and that the review is whether the applicant has satisfied cl.186.223.
Nomination of a position
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.
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.
On 18 October 2018, the Department invited the applicant to comment upon information that included the following:
“The nomination submitted to the department by FoodShala Pty Ltd listing you as their Nominee has been refused. This means that your visa application cannot be approved.”
On 30 September 2020, the Tribunal corresponded with the applicant with the following request for information:
“Dear Mrs Gogna and Mr Lutchmanah
INVITATION TO COMMENT ON OR RESPOND TO INFORMATION – MRS
PARNEET KAUR GOGNA AND MR PARMANAND LUTCHMANAH
I am writing on instruction from the Member conducting your review, in relation to the
applications for review made by you in respect of decisions to refuse to grant
Employer Nomination (Permanent) visas.
In conducting the review, we are required by the Migration Act 1958 to invite you to
comment on or respond to certain information which we consider would, subject to
your comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the
decisions under review.
Please note, however, that we have not made up our mind about the information.
You are invited to provide comment on the following information:
The application for approval of the nominated position made by FOODSHALA PTY
LTD was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration. The nominator
sought a review of that decision, but the AAT found that it did not have jurisdiction
because the company had been deregistered. This means that the nominator’s
application for the nominated position has not been approved.
This information is relevant to the review because it is a requirement for the grant of
the visa that the position specified in your visa application is the subject of an
approved nomination.
If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may find that the position
specified in your visa application is not the subject of an approved nomination. This
would mean that you do not satisfy a requirement for the grant of the visa and that we
must affirm the decision that is under review.
You are invited to give comments on or respond to the above information in writing.
Your comments or response should be received by 14 October 2020. If the
comments or response are in a language other than English, they must be
accompanied by an English translation from an accredited translator.
If you cannot provide your written comments or response by 14 October 2020, you
may ask us for an extension of time in which to provide the comments or response. If
you make such a request, it must be received by us by 14 October 2020 and you
must state the reason why the extension of time is required.
We will carefully consider any request for an extension of time and will advise whether
or not the extension has been granted.
If we do not receive your comments or response within the period allowed or as
extended, we may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to
obtain your views on the information. You will also lose any entitlement you might
otherwise have had under the Migration Act 1958 to appear before us to give
evidence and present arguments.
If you have any questions, please email [email protected], or contact me on the
number listed below, or telephone our national enquiry line on 1800 228 333. For
language assistance, please contact the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS) on
131 450.”
Further, there is no information before the Tribunal that suggests the applicant is the subject of a nomination approved by the Minister as required by cl.186.223(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
Accordingly, the requirements of cl.186.223(3) are not met.
Therefore, cl.186.223 is not met.
On the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, the decision should be affirmed.
The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition 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 Temporary Residence Transition stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.
Further, because the first named applicant is unable to satisfy cl.186.223(2), the secondary applicant is unable to satisfy cl.186.311 because he is not a member of a family unit of a person who holds a Subclass 186 visa granted on the basis of satisfying the primary criteria for the grant of the visa. Therefore, the decisions in relation to the secondary applicant must be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.
Warren Stooke AM
Member

ATTACHMENT A
186.223(1)     The position to which the application relates is the position:
(a)nominated in an application for approval that:
(i)identifies the applicant in relation to the position; and
(ii)is made in relation to a visa in a Temporary Residence Transition stream; 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.

[2020] AATA 4472

21 October 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice