Hanspal Singh (Migration)

[2023] AATA 1114

Hanspal Singh (Migration) [2023] AATA 1114 (26 April 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr  Hanspal Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1903943

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/1010178

MEMBER:Karen McNamara

DATE:26 April 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.

Statement made on 26 April 2023 at 12:39pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Office Manager – subject of an approved nomination – withdrawal of review application – unable to action request – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359C, 360, 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 187.233

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 617

Kaur v Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 915
Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FMCA 28

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18

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 to refuse to grant Mr Hanspal Singh (the applicant) a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 14 March 2017. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).

3. The criteria for a Subclass 187 visa are set out in Part 187 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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 two alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, or the Direct Entry stream.

4. In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Office Manager (ANZSCO 512111).

5. The decision record provided to the Tribunal, records that the delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which required the applicant to be the subject of an approved nomination. The delegate found that the nomination lodged by The Trustee For the Daniel Richard Family Trust (the nominator) was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 18 December 2018.

6. Accordingly, as the nomination application had been refused, the delegate found that cl. 187.233(3) was not met and therefore the applicant did not meet cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

7. The applicant lodged an application for review with the Tribunal on 20 February 2019. The review application was accompanied by a copy of the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal also has before it the Department file containing all information before the delegate at the time of their decision.

8. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Nomination of a position

11. Clause 187.233 as applicable in this case is set out in full in an attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration made as part of the current visa application. In addition, where the associated nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, it must identify the applicant in relation to the position.

12. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the nomination

    ·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 reg 1.13A and reg 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.

13. On 16 August 2021 the Tribunal received an online submitted application to withdraw the applicant’s review application.

14. By return email on 16 August 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the authorised recipient advising the withdrawal application was from an unknown email address and therefore the Tribunal was unable to action the request. The Tribunal sought confirmation from the authorised recipient (in this case the representative) as to whether they wished to continue with the withdrawal application and requested the applicant’s personal telephone number and email address. The Tribunal further stated ‘Please provide the requested information or evidence of making arrangements to obtain the requested information by 23 August 2021. Should you not respond by the date required, the Tribunal will assume that the withdrawal application is invalid.’ 

15. As at the time of this decision no response has been received by the Tribunal in regard to its request dated 16 August 2021. 

16. On 29 March 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the authorised recipient noting that information before the Tribunal showed that the applicant is now the holder of a substantive visa and sought confirmation by reply email, as to whether the applicant wished to continue with the review application. The Tribunal additionally included a link to a withdrawal form.

17. On 30 March 2022, the authorised recipient/representative advised the Tribunal that they were no longer acting for the applicant.

18. On 1 April 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the authorised recipient/representative requesting the last known contact details for the applicant. Additionally on 1 April 2022, the Tribunal requested the authorised recipient/ representative to provide confirmation from the applicant (as per an enclosed letter to the applicant) that the authorised recipient/representative was no longer to receive correspondence in connection with the review. A copy was also provided (via Australia Post) to the most recent address for the applicant, as per Tribunal records.

19. On 26 May 2022, the authorised recipient/representative submitted an online incomplete ‘Appointment of Representative/Appointment of Authorised Recipient form. On 30 May 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the authorised recipient/representative and applicant advising that the form was incomplete and requested the representative to resend a completed version.

20. On 1 June 2022, the Tribunal received an email from the authorised recipient/representative advising ‘We note that this application was withdrawn and confirm that no further actions are required regarding the MR5 form’.

21. On 22 November 2022 the Tribunal again wrote to the authorised recipient/representative advising that information before the Tribunal shows that the applicant is now the holder of a substantive visa and sought confirmation by reply email as to whether the applicant wishes to continue with the review application. The Tribunal additionally included a link to a withdrawal form.

22. On 29 November 2022, the Tribunal received a withdrawal form, however the details provided did not match to the authorised email address as per Tribunal records. 

23. On 30 November 2022, the Tribunal by return email advised the applicant that the withdrawal application was from an unknown email address and therefore the Tribunal was unable to action the request. The Tribunal requested the applicant to provide updated contact details and enclosed a link to ‘MR6 Change of Contact Details’ form.

24. At the time of this decision, no response confirming the applicant’s contact details has been received by the Tribunal.

25. On 30 March 2023, the Tribunal invited the review applicant under s.360 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) (dispatched by email to the authorised recipient) to appear before the Tribunal on 15 May 2023 at 2:00 pm. The Tribunal notes that at the time of this decision the applicant has not responded to this invitation.

26. On 5 April 2023, 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 his comments or response, be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. 

27. The information related to information before the Tribunal that shows on 10 September 2021, the Tribunal affirmed the Department’s decision not to approve the nomination in relation to the applicant made by the nominating employer, The Trustee for The Daniel Richard Family Trust.

28. The Tribunal’s letter of 5 April 2023 noted that this information is relevant because the Tribunal may not be satisfied that the application is subject to a nomination that has been approved by the Minister (cl.187.233(3)). The letter further stated:

    ‘  If the Tribunal relies on this information, it may find that the nomination in relation to

    you has not been approved and consequently the decision under review would be
    affirmed.

    You are invited to give comments on or respond to the above information in writing.

    Your comments or response should be received by 19 April 2023. 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 19 April 2023, 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 19 April 2023, 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.

    An invitation to attend a scheduled hearing was sent to you on 30 March 2023. Please note, however, that if you do not respond to this letter within the date specified or within any extended timeframe, you may lose your right to attend the scheduled hearing and it will be cancelled. The Tribunal may then proceed to make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain your views on the information.’

29. The invitation to comment/respond was sent to the authorised recipient at the last email address provided in connection with the review and advised as stated above, if the comments/response were not provided in writing by 19 April 2023, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the applicant’s comments and the review applicant would lose any entitlement he may otherwise have had under the Act, to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

30. As at the time of this decision, the review applicant has not provided the comments or a response within the prescribed period and no extension has been sought or has been granted. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40. Accordingly, the applicant has lost the right to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments relating to this review application.

31. The Tribunal has carefully considered whether to afford additional time to the applicant to provide comment as requested in the s.359(a) invitation, or to provide further material in support of their application for review.

32. In doing so, it has paid careful regard to the guidance in the decisions of Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 617 and Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FMCA 28, where the Courts held that the Tribunal is not required to indefinitely defer its decision-making process. It has also had regard to the decision in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18 regarding the reasonableness of any request for an adjournment, and the Full Federal Court decision in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1 which considered this issue, as well as the decision in Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 915 where analogous issues were discussed.

33. The Tribunal is satisfied that the invitation to provide comment was sent to the correct email address. The invitation was not returned to sender as undeliverable mail. At the time of this decision, the applicant has not provided comment, or a response and the applicant has not made contact with the Tribunal to indicate that a response is forthcoming.

34. The Tribunal has also taken into account the fact that the implications of not providing the comments/response as requested in the invitation from the Tribunal, were set out in the Tribunal’s letter of 5 April 2023.

35. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to proceed to make its decision on the available evidence without taking further steps to obtain the applicants’ comments.

36. 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.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

37. As the applicant does not meet an essential criterion for the grant of a subclass 187 visa, cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations is not met.

38. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry 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 Direct Entry stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

39. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.

    Karen McNamara
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    187.233(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:

    (i)subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii); or

    (ii)subregulation 5.19(4) as in force before 1 July 2012; and

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

    (2)     The person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the nomination.

    (3)     The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (4)     The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (4A)    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.

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

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