Jariya Choosrithong (Migration)
Case
•
[2023] AATA 1673
•6 June 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jariya Choosrithong (Migration) [2023] AATA 1673
[2023] AATA 1673
6 June 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Jariya Choosrithong concerning the approval of a nomination for a position as a Dental Technician under the short-term stream of the Subclass 482 visa program. The dispute arose when the nomination was not approved, leading the applicant to seek review by the Tribunal.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the approval of the nomination, as stipulated by section 140GB(2) of the Migration Act 1958 and Regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the nomination complied with the prescribed process, whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration, whether the nominator was a standard business sponsor, and whether any relevant debts had been paid. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider if the nominated occupation, Dental Technician (ANZSCO 411213), was specified in the relevant legislative instrument and if it applied to the nominee.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had satisfied all the applicable criteria for the nomination. It was satisfied that the nomination was made in accordance with the prescribed process, including the use of the approved form, payment of fees, and inclusion of necessary certifications. The Tribunal also noted the absence of adverse information concerning the applicant or associated persons, confirmed the applicant's status as an approved standard business sponsor, and found no evidence of outstanding debts under section 140ZO of the Act. Furthermore, the nominated occupation of Dental Technician was found to be listed in the relevant legislative instrument (LIN 19/048) and applicable to the nominee.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the approval of the nomination, as stipulated by section 140GB(2) of the Migration Act 1958 and Regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the nomination complied with the prescribed process, whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration, whether the nominator was a standard business sponsor, and whether any relevant debts had been paid. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider if the nominated occupation, Dental Technician (ANZSCO 411213), was specified in the relevant legislative instrument and if it applied to the nominee.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had satisfied all the applicable criteria for the nomination. It was satisfied that the nomination was made in accordance with the prescribed process, including the use of the approved form, payment of fees, and inclusion of necessary certifications. The Tribunal also noted the absence of adverse information concerning the applicant or associated persons, confirmed the applicant's status as an approved standard business sponsor, and found no evidence of outstanding debts under section 140ZO of the Act. Furthermore, the nominated occupation of Dental Technician was found to be listed in the relevant legislative instrument (LIN 19/048) and applicable to the nominee.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0