Jang (Migration)
[2020] AATA 4787
•17 November 2020
Jang (Migration) [2020] AATA 4787 (17 November 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS: Miss Suji Jang
Mr Panshi KimCASE NUMBER: 1804244
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2016/3682926
MEMBER:Wan Shum
DATE:17 November 2020
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:
·cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Statement made on 17 November 2020 at 4:52pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Retail Manager – subject of an approved nomination – decision under review remittedLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 187.233STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants applied for the visas on 4 November 2016.
The criteria for a Subclass 187 visa are set out in Part 187 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 two alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, or the Direct Entry stream.
In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Retail Manager. The related nomination was made by NE Links Pty Ltd (the nominator) on 4 November 2016.
On 28 December 2017, a delegate decided not to approve the nomination and, as a consequence, refused to grant the visas finding that the applicant did not meet cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Both the nominator and the applicants have sought review of these decisions and were represented in relation to the review by the same registered migration agent.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the position to which the application relates is 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.
In addition, this criterion also requires that:
·the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made 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.
On the visa application, the applicant provided details of a related nomination with Transaction Reference Number EGOCQFJ7E3, which refers to the nomination made by the nominator for the position of Retail Manager. Under the section ENS/RSMS declarations, the applicant responded ‘Yes’ to the sentence: “[h]ave declared that the position to which the application relates is a position nominated under regulation 5.19 or in accordance with a labour agreement by providing details in this application of a nomination that has been lodged with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection”.
On 6 October 2020, the Tribunal made a decision to approve the nomination made by the nominator.
Therefore, cl.187.233(3) is now met.
Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the applications Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:
·cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Wan Shum
MemberATTACHMENT 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.
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
0
0
0