Jeong (Migration)
Case
•
[2020] AATA 4136
•29 September 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jeong (Migration) [2020] AATA 4136
[2020] AATA 4136
29 September 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the applications of Mr. Jeong and a secondary applicant for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme), Temporary Residence Transition stream. The dispute centred on an approved nomination for a Customer Service Manager position, which had been subject to adverse information received by the Department of Immigration.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the nomination for the Customer Service Manager position was approved and whether it was reasonable to disregard the adverse information that had been disclosed to the applicants. This involved assessing the validity of the nomination against the requirements of clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which includes provisions regarding the approval of nominations, the absence of adverse information, or the reasonableness of disregarding such information, and the continued availability of the nominated position.
The Tribunal found that the nomination application for the Customer Service Manager position, made by the employer Auswin and identifying Mr. Jeong as the applicant, was valid. It reviewed the Department's decision to refuse the nomination and set it aside, substituting it with a decision to approve the nomination. The adverse information, which originated from an anonymous tip alleging payments for permanent residency and unspecified illegal acts within the company, was contained in a section 376 certificate. The Tribunal considered the substance of these allegations, which implicated the owner of Auswin, Mr. Wang, and by association, Mr. Jeong as an employee and a subclass 457 visa holder. Despite the anonymous nature of the tip, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to disclose the allegations to the applicants, as they directly related to the nomination and visa applications. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
The Tribunal remitted the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa applications for reconsideration, directing that the primary applicant, Mr. Jeong, meets the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa, including clause 186.223. The application made by the secondary applicant was also to be reconsidered.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the nomination for the Customer Service Manager position was approved and whether it was reasonable to disregard the adverse information that had been disclosed to the applicants. This involved assessing the validity of the nomination against the requirements of clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which includes provisions regarding the approval of nominations, the absence of adverse information, or the reasonableness of disregarding such information, and the continued availability of the nominated position.
The Tribunal found that the nomination application for the Customer Service Manager position, made by the employer Auswin and identifying Mr. Jeong as the applicant, was valid. It reviewed the Department's decision to refuse the nomination and set it aside, substituting it with a decision to approve the nomination. The adverse information, which originated from an anonymous tip alleging payments for permanent residency and unspecified illegal acts within the company, was contained in a section 376 certificate. The Tribunal considered the substance of these allegations, which implicated the owner of Auswin, Mr. Wang, and by association, Mr. Jeong as an employee and a subclass 457 visa holder. Despite the anonymous nature of the tip, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to disclose the allegations to the applicants, as they directly related to the nomination and visa applications. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
The Tribunal remitted the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa applications for reconsideration, directing that the primary applicant, Mr. Jeong, meets the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa, including clause 186.223. The application made by the secondary applicant was also to be reconsidered.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Jeong (Migration) [2020] AATA 4136
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0