Jeon (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 535
•3 March 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jeon (Migration) [2021] AATA 535
[2021] AATA 535
3 March 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), direct entry stream. The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse their visa application, which stemmed from a refusal of the related nomination application. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the nomination for the applicant's position had been approved.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. This clause outlines several criteria for the nominated position, including that it must be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination application, and that the nominator must be the prospective employer. Additionally, the clause requires that the nomination has not been withdrawn, there is no adverse information known to the Department, the position remains available, and the visa application was lodged within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal reasoned that it must first make findings of fact on disputed material matters, including assessing credibility where necessary. In this instance, the Tribunal relied on evidence previously provided to the Department and the Tribunal, as well as written submissions. The Tribunal found that the approved position, identified as Cook (ANZSCO 251411), was the same as that subject to the relevant nomination application and visa declaration. It was also satisfied that the nominator was the prospective employer and that the nomination had been approved. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233.
Given these findings, the Tribunal determined that the appropriate course of action was to remit the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining visa criteria. The Tribunal directed that the applicant be considered to meet the requirements of clause 187.233.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. This clause outlines several criteria for the nominated position, including that it must be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination application, and that the nominator must be the prospective employer. Additionally, the clause requires that the nomination has not been withdrawn, there is no adverse information known to the Department, the position remains available, and the visa application was lodged within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal reasoned that it must first make findings of fact on disputed material matters, including assessing credibility where necessary. In this instance, the Tribunal relied on evidence previously provided to the Department and the Tribunal, as well as written submissions. The Tribunal found that the approved position, identified as Cook (ANZSCO 251411), was the same as that subject to the relevant nomination application and visa declaration. It was also satisfied that the nominator was the prospective employer and that the nomination had been approved. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233.
Given these findings, the Tribunal determined that the appropriate course of action was to remit the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining visa criteria. The Tribunal directed that the applicant be considered to meet the requirements of clause 187.233.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Jeon (Migration) [2021] AATA 535
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0