Huang (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3828

Huang (Migration) [2018] AATA 3828 (5 September 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr He Huang

CASE NUMBER:  1717577

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2016/1745578

MEMBER:John Cipolla

DATE:5 September 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 05 September 2018 at 2:48pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme – Direct Entry stream – position of Financial Investment Adviser – nomination refused – false and misleading information – adverse information about the nominating person – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2 cls 186.213, 186.233, Public Interest Criterion 4020

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 27 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 16 May 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 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, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Financial Investment Adviser.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination lodged by AIBL Consulting Pty Ltd was refused by the Department on 3 August 2017. The delegate also refused to grant the visa on a second ground, finding the applicant did not meet cl.186.213 as the applicant did not satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4020. The delegate made this finding as the applicant had provided information that was false and misleading in a material particular to the Department in support of the visa application.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.186.233.

   Nomination of a position

8. Clause 186.233 as applicable in this case is set out in full in an attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Direct Entry stream. 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.

9. 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 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.

10. As has been noted the Department refused the application made by AIBL Consulting Pty Ltd for nomination approval on 3 August 2017. On 10 August 2018 the Tribunal dismissed the application for merits review and as such the decision under review was taken to have been affirmed.

11. Therefore, cl.186.233 is not met.

12. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 186 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

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

    John Cipolla
    Senior Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    186.233(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)(i); or

    (ii)subregulation 5.19(2) as in force before 1 July 2012; and

    (b)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 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 not more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.