Gosselke (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2633

Gosselke (Migration) [2018] AATA 2633 (25 July 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Manuel Gosselke

CASE NUMBER:  1713322

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/3716015

MEMBER:Denise Connolly

DATE:25 July 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

·cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 25 July 2018 at 1:53pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Requirement to be subject of an approved nomination – Nomination previously refused by delegate – Nomination subsequently approved by Tribunal – Decision remitted with direction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19(3), Schedule 2, cl 186.223(2)

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 Immigration and Border Protection on 2 June 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 7 November 2016. 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 the applicant. 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 Agreement stream.

4. In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Mixed Crop and Livestock Farmer. This stream is designed for Subclass 457 visa holders who have worked for their employer for the past two years, and that employer has offered them a permanent position in the same occupation.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination of the position in respect of the applicant was not approved.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 May 2018 to give evidence and present arguments.

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

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Nomination of a position

9. Clause 186.223 requires that for applicants in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the position to which the application relates is the subject of an application for approval of a nominated position under r.5.19(3) of the Regulations (that is, a Temporary Residence Transition nomination). For those purposes, the applicant must have been identified in the nomination as the relevant Subclass 457 visa holder, and 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.

10. The applicant applied for the visa on the basis of a nomination made by Toscana (WA) Pty Ltd. The employer nomination in which the applicant was identified as the relevant 457 visa holder was refused by the Department.

11. Toscana (WA) Pty Ltd applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision not to approve the relevant nomination. On 25 July 2018, the Tribunal set aside the Department's decision and substituted a decision to approve the nomination.

12. As the relevant nomination in respect of the applicant has been approved, the applicant accordingly meets the requirement in cl.186.223(2).

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

    DECISION

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

    ·cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Denise Connolly
    Member