Harmandeep Singh (Migration)

[2020] AATA 5732

Harmandeep Singh (Migration) [2020] AATA 5732 (10 December 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Harmandeep Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1833636

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/956771

MEMBER:Sheridan Lee

DATE AND TIME OF

ORAL DECISION AND REASONS:         10 December 2020 at 11:40 am (VIC time)

DATE OF WRITTEN RECORD:                25 January 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 25 January 2021 at 9:32 am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Employer Migration Scheme) – direct entry stream – subject of approved position nomination – nominating company deregistered – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 187.233

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 8 November 2018 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) Subclass 187 visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. At the hearing on 10 December 2020 the Tribunal made an oral decision and gave an oral statement of decision and reasons. The following is the written record of those reasons.

   STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

3. This is an oral decision in the application of Harmandeep Singh, AAT reference 1833636. On 10 March 2017 the applicant applied to the Department of Home Affairs for a regional employer nomination (subclass 187) visa. The criteria for a subclass 187 visa are set out in part 187 of schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant.

4. In the present case the applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream to work in the nominated position of cook.  Clause 187.233 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.  This requirement cannot be satisfied by a later nomination of a position made by a different employer or a later nomination in respect of the same position made by the same employer.

5. In the current matter the applicant has advised the tribunal today that he started working for SG Foodservice Pty Ltd for around a month and a half when he was advised by the company that they could no longer pay him.  He was later advised by his migration agent that the company had been deregistered.  The applicant further advised that he is not the subject of any other pending nomination application.  As a result, the tribunal finds that the applicant is not the subject of an approved or pending nomination in the Direct Entry stream.

6. 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 stream.  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.

7. The tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a regional employer nomination visa.

   DECISION

8. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

   Sheridan Lee
   Member