Jose (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 3085
•29 April 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jose (Migration) [2019] AATA 3085
[2019] AATA 3085
29 April 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed a decision by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to refuse a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, for Mr. Alexander Jose. The sponsoring employer, ITS IT Australia Pty Ltd, had applied for approval of a nomination for the position of Engineering Technologist (ANZSCO 233914). The Department refused the nomination application, and consequently, Mr. Jose's visa application, on the basis that the nomination did not satisfy regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) of the Migration Regulations. Both the employer and Mr. Jose sought review of these decisions by the Tribunal.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination for the Engineering Technologist position had been approved. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied the criteria for the Subclass 187 visa, specifically in relation to the requirement for an approved nomination under clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination application made under specific regulations, and that the applicant must be identified in that nomination.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to provide evidence of the approval of the relevant nomination. Following the Department's refusal of the nomination, the Tribunal had notified Mr. Jose under section 359A of the Act that the nomination decision had been affirmed and that without evidence of nomination approval, he could not satisfy clause 187.233(3). Mr. Jose was invited to respond, but he failed to do so within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision without further steps, applying section 359C and section 360(3) of the Act, as the applicant was not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that as the requirements for the Direct Entry stream had not been met, the decision under review should be affirmed.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr. Jose's Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination for the Engineering Technologist position had been approved. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied the criteria for the Subclass 187 visa, specifically in relation to the requirement for an approved nomination under clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination application made under specific regulations, and that the applicant must be identified in that nomination.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to provide evidence of the approval of the relevant nomination. Following the Department's refusal of the nomination, the Tribunal had notified Mr. Jose under section 359A of the Act that the nomination decision had been affirmed and that without evidence of nomination approval, he could not satisfy clause 187.233(3). Mr. Jose was invited to respond, but he failed to do so within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision without further steps, applying section 359C and section 360(3) of the Act, as the applicant was not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that as the requirements for the Direct Entry stream had not been met, the decision under review should be affirmed.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr. Jose's Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Jose (Migration) [2019] AATA 3085
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0