Kings Table Holdings P/L (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 4436
•16 July 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kings Table Holdings P/L (Migration) [2019] AATA 4436
[2019] AATA 4436
16 July 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal by Kings Table Holdings P/L regarding a decision to refuse a nomination for a visa. The nominated occupation was Cook. The primary issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the requirements of regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regulation 2.72(10)(h), which mandates that the nominator must engage the nominee as an employee under a written contract of employment and provide a copy to the Minister, unless the nominated occupation is specified in a relevant instrument. The nominated occupation of Cook was not specified in the relevant instrument, thus requiring a written contract.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided a copy of a written contract of employment to the Minister, which was a requirement for the nominated occupation. Despite the Tribunal writing to the applicant under subsection 359(2) of the Act to invite further information, the applicant failed to respond. Consequently, the Tribunal had no evidence that the applicant would engage the nominee under a written contract of employment, meaning regulation 2.72(10)(h) was not met. As this criterion was not satisfied, the Tribunal did not need to consider the remaining criteria. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the requirements of regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regulation 2.72(10)(h), which mandates that the nominator must engage the nominee as an employee under a written contract of employment and provide a copy to the Minister, unless the nominated occupation is specified in a relevant instrument. The nominated occupation of Cook was not specified in the relevant instrument, thus requiring a written contract.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided a copy of a written contract of employment to the Minister, which was a requirement for the nominated occupation. Despite the Tribunal writing to the applicant under subsection 359(2) of the Act to invite further information, the applicant failed to respond. Consequently, the Tribunal had no evidence that the applicant would engage the nominee under a written contract of employment, meaning regulation 2.72(10)(h) was not met. As this criterion was not satisfied, the Tribunal did not need to consider 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
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Yang v MIAC
[2010] FMCA 890
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2002] FCA 617
Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2012] FMCA 28