Khan (Migration)

Case

[2020] AATA 5427

22 December 2020


Khan (Migration) [2020] AATA 5427 (22 December 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Ms Yasmeen Khan
Miss Nazmeera Ebrahim Wadiwala
Mr Nabeel Ebrahim Wadiwala
Mr Nameer Ebrahim Wadiwala

CASE NUMBER:  1814397

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/3575345

MEMBER:Michelle East

DATE:22 December 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

·cl.186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 22 December 2020 at 11:54am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Occupational Health and Safety Adviser – subject of an approved nomination – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19; Schedule 2, cl 186.233

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

  1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 3 May 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

  2. The applicants applied for the visas on 29 September 2017. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).

  3. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 186 visa are set out in Part 186 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria. Applicants seeking to satisfy the primary criteria must meet the ‘Common criteria’, as well as the criteria of one of three alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the Direct Entry stream, or the Labour Agreement stream.

  4. In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Occupational Health and Safety Adviser.

  5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination.

  6. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

  7. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

  8. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is the subject of an approved nomination.

    Nomination of a position

  9. Clause 186.233 as applicable in this case is set out in full in an attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Direct Entry stream. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration made as part of the current visa application. In addition, where the associated nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, it must identify the applicant in relation to the position.

  10. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the nomination

    ·the nomination has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn

    ·there is no ‘adverse information’ known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person ‘associated with’ that person (within the meaning of r.1.13A and r.1.13B); or it is reasonable to disregard any such information

    ·the position is still available to the applicant, and

    ·the visa application was made no more than six months after the nomination of the position was approved.

  11. The applicant was nominated by Airig Pty Ltd for the position of Occupational Health and Safety Adviser.  The position is the same as in the 5.19 nomination application and the employer is the nominator.

  12. The nomination was initially refused by the Department.  However, on 22 December 2020 this Tribunal made a decision to set aside the refusal and substituted a decision approving the nomination.

  13. The Tribunal is satisfied that the nomination has not been withdrawn and that the position is still available to the applicant.  The Tribunal is also satisfied that the visa application was not made more than six months after the nomination of the position was approved.

  14. There is no evidence before the Tribunal suggesting the possibility of an employer sponsor breach known to the Department about the nominator.

  15. Given the above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant meets all the requirements of cl.186.233.

  16. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

    DECISION

  17. The Tribunal remits the applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

    ·cl.186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

    Michelle East
    Member


    ATTACHMENT A

    186.233(1)     The position to which the application relates is the position:

    (a)nominated in an application for approval that seeks to meet the requirements of:

    (i)subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(i); or

    (ii)subregulation 5.19(2) as in force before 1 July 2012; and

    (aa)in relation to which the applicant is identified in the application under subparagraph 5.19(4)(a)(ii); and

    (b)in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114B(3)(d) of Schedule 1 was made in the application for the grant of the visa.

    (2)     The person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the nomination.

    (3)     The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (4)     The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (4A)    Either:

    (a)there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person associated with that person; or

    (b)it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person associated with that person.

    (5)     The position is still available to the applicant.

    (6)     The application for the visa is made not more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Remedies

  • Statutory Construction

  • Jurisdiction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0