HABIB (Migration)

[2020] AATA 233

HABIB (Migration) [2020] AATA 233 (6 February 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Md Safiul HABIB

CASE NUMBER:  1717065

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/473085

MEMBER:Karen McNamara

DATE:6 February 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa.

Statement made on 06 February 2020 at 9:44am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Customer Service Manager – subject of an approved nomination – nomination application refused – decision under review affirmed

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

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 18 July 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 6 February 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, Mr Md Safiul Habib (the applicant) is seeking the visa in Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Customer Service Manager (ANZSCO 149212).

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 18 July 2017 because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations which required him to be the subject of an approved nomination. The delegate found that the nomination lodged by Kassa Imports Pty Ltd (the nominator) was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 15 June 2017.

6. Accordingly, as the nomination application had been refused, the delegate found that cl.186.223(2) was not met and therefore the applicant did not meet cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

7. The applicant applied to the Tribunal on 4 August 2017 for review of the delegate’s decision.

8. Mr Md Safiul Habib appeared before the Tribunal on 6 November 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr Albani Kamruzzaman on behalf of the nominator.

9. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

10. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

11. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.186.223.

    Nomination of a position

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. The applicant attended the hearing on the 6 November 2019. It was a combined hearing regarding the nomination refusal. The Tribunal explained that, to meet cl.186.223, the applicant must be the subject of an approved nomination. It explained that the review of the nomination refusal must be finalised, before the decision in this case could be made. The Tribunal advised that it would write to the applicant advising of the decision.

15. On the 16 January 2020, the Tribunal affirmed the decision refusing the approval of the nomination made by Kassa Imports Pty Ltd in respect of the applicant. As the nomination has been refused, the applicant does not satisfy cl.186.223(2) and as such cl.186.223 is not met.

16. On 20 January 2020, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(A) of the Act (dispatched by email to the authorised recipient). The letter invited the applicant to comment on or respond to, information which the Tribunal considered would, subject to their comments or response, be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. The information related to the Tribunal’s decision to affirm the decision not to approve the nomination made by Kassa Imports Pty Ltd which the Tribunal explained was relevant to the applicant meeting cl.186.223(2) which requires the nomination to be approved. As the nomination has been refused, cl.186.223(2) is not met.

17. The invitation was sent to the last address provided in connection with the review and advised that, if the comments or response were not provided in writing by 3 February 2020 the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the comments and the review applicant would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act.

18. On 30 January 2020 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal via email in the following terms;       “I would like to request an audio for my hearing with the AAT which held on the 6th November 2019. Since, I would like to proceed to the Federal Circuit Court therefore, for better understating of the case my solicitor requires the audio of the full hearing”.

19. On 31 January 2020, the Tribunal provided the audio recording to the applicant and his representative.

20. On 5 February 2020 the representative advised the Tribunal via email “On behalf of the visa applicant, I can confirm that the Tribunal can proceed with finalising and deciding this visa application appeal.  We do not have any further information or documents to provide at this time.”

21. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s email of 30 January 2020 and the representative’s advice of 5 February 2020, do not address the issue of whether there is an approved nomination and that the applicant has not provided any evidence to confirm that he is subject of an approved nomination.

22. Therefore, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to support that the applicant’s visa application is subject to a nomination that has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn.

23. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the nomination application associated with the position was not approved. Therefore the applicant does not meet cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

24. Therefore, as the applicant does not meet an essential criterion for the grant of a subclass 186 visa, the applicant does not satisfy cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

25. 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.

    DECISION

26. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa.

    Karen McNamara
    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.