KARTAR DHALIWAL PTY LTD (Migration)
Case
•
[2022] AATA 1575
•17 February 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
KARTAR DHALIWAL PTY LTD (Migration) [2022] AATA 1575
[2022] AATA 1575
17 February 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by Kartar Dhaliwal Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination under the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The applicant sought to nominate a position as a Hairdresser. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination as set out in regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated employee would be employed on a full-time basis for at least two years, as required by regulation 5.19(3)(d). The Tribunal noted that no updated or current information had been provided regarding the applicant's business or the nominated position since the review application was lodged, and the delegate's decision was made approximately 34 months prior. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the nominee would be employed full-time in the nominated position for the requisite period.
The Tribunal reasoned that regulation 5.19(3)(d) mandates that for a nomination to be approved under this stream, the nominee must be employed full-time for at least two years, with terms that do not preclude an extension. Given the lack of current information and the failure to satisfy this specific criterion, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not met the requirements of regulation 5.19(3). As one criterion was not met, the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to examine the remaining criteria. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated employee would be employed on a full-time basis for at least two years, as required by regulation 5.19(3)(d). The Tribunal noted that no updated or current information had been provided regarding the applicant's business or the nominated position since the review application was lodged, and the delegate's decision was made approximately 34 months prior. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the nominee would be employed full-time in the nominated position for the requisite period.
The Tribunal reasoned that regulation 5.19(3)(d) mandates that for a nomination to be approved under this stream, the nominee must be employed full-time for at least two years, with terms that do not preclude an extension. Given the lack of current information and the failure to satisfy this specific criterion, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not met the requirements of regulation 5.19(3). As one criterion was not met, the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to examine the remaining criteria. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2002] FCA 617
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li
[2013] HCA 18
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh
[2014] FCAFC 1