Jaspreet Singh (Migration)
Case
•
[2020] AATA 851
•19 March 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jaspreet Singh (Migration) [2020] AATA 851
[2020] AATA 851
19 March 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to refuse an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Temporary Residence Transition stream), for Jaspreet Singh, nominated for the position of Cook. The core of the dispute centred on whether the applicant's nomination was approved, a prerequisite for the visa grant.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the decision to refuse the applicant's nomination application should be affirmed on review. This determination was critical because the visa application could only succeed if the nomination was approved. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the primary criteria for the visa, specifically whether he was the subject of a current approved nomination.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination application, noting that a delegate had initially refused it on the basis that it did not satisfy subregulation 5.19(3)(b)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This was because the nominating business was not the same standard business sponsor who had previously nominated the applicant for a Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal subsequently affirmed this refusal on 3 February 2020. As a consequence, the nomination was not approved as required by regulation 186.223(2), meaning the applicant was not the subject of a current approved nomination. The Tribunal also noted that the family members of the applicant, who were also applicants, could not succeed as their applications were based on the primary applicant meeting the criteria for the Subclass 186 visa, which he had not.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the decision to refuse the applicant's nomination application should be affirmed on review. This determination was critical because the visa application could only succeed if the nomination was approved. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the primary criteria for the visa, specifically whether he was the subject of a current approved nomination.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination application, noting that a delegate had initially refused it on the basis that it did not satisfy subregulation 5.19(3)(b)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This was because the nominating business was not the same standard business sponsor who had previously nominated the applicant for a Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal subsequently affirmed this refusal on 3 February 2020. As a consequence, the nomination was not approved as required by regulation 186.223(2), meaning the applicant was not the subject of a current approved nomination. The Tribunal also noted that the family members of the applicant, who were also applicants, could not succeed as their applications were based on the primary applicant meeting the criteria for the Subclass 186 visa, which he had not.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Appeal
-
Natural Justice
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0