Huzaifa Sajjad (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 3442
•9 August 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Huzaifa Sajjad (Migration) [2018] AATA 3442
[2018] AATA 3442
9 August 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, by the applicants. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination, as required by the regulations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the nomination had been approved and had not been subsequently withdrawn, whether the nominator was the prospective employer, whether there was any adverse information concerning the nominator, and whether the position remained available to the applicant. The Tribunal also considered the requirement that the visa application be made no more than six months after the nomination was approved, and the eligibility of the secondary applicant.
The Tribunal found that while the nominator, Aggarwal’s and Brothers Pty Ltd, was the prospective employer and there was no adverse information known to Immigration, the nomination itself had not been approved. This was a consequence of a prior review decision. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that clause 187.233 of the Regulations was not met. Furthermore, the secondary applicant was unable to satisfy the requirements of clause 187.311 as they were not the family member of a primary applicant who had satisfied the primary criteria for the visa.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants the Subclass 187 visas.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination, as required by the regulations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the nomination had been approved and had not been subsequently withdrawn, whether the nominator was the prospective employer, whether there was any adverse information concerning the nominator, and whether the position remained available to the applicant. The Tribunal also considered the requirement that the visa application be made no more than six months after the nomination was approved, and the eligibility of the secondary applicant.
The Tribunal found that while the nominator, Aggarwal’s and Brothers Pty Ltd, was the prospective employer and there was no adverse information known to Immigration, the nomination itself had not been approved. This was a consequence of a prior review decision. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that clause 187.233 of the Regulations was not met. Furthermore, the secondary applicant was unable to satisfy the requirements of clause 187.311 as they were not the family member of a primary applicant who had satisfied the primary criteria for the visa.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants the Subclass 187 visas.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Natural Justice
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0