Haider (Migration)

Case

[2021] AATA 2192

27 May 2021


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Haider (Migration) [2021] AATA 2192 [2021] AATA 2192 27 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, by an applicant seeking to work as a Café or Restaurant Manager. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with Member Jade Murphy presiding. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position met the relevant legislative criteria for the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the position to which the applicant's visa application related was the subject of an approved nomination, as stipulated by clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause, as applicable, requires, among other things, that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, that the nominator be the prospective employer, that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, and that the visa application be made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal found that the nomination lodged by Roma Food Pty Ltd was refused on 21 March 2019. Although Roma Food Pty Ltd applied for a review of this refusal, the Tribunal subsequently determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear that application because the nominator had been deregistered. Consequently, the nomination remained refused. As the applicant had not provided any evidence or submissions to the Tribunal, and given that the nomination remained refused, the Tribunal concluded that the criterion requiring an approved nomination was not met. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

5

Statutory Material Cited

0