Kochem Da Silva (Migration)
Case
•
[2022] AATA 1189
•18 March 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kochem Da Silva (Migration) [2022] AATA 1189
[2022] AATA 1189
18 March 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by Kochem Da Silva regarding a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought review of a decision concerning the approval of a nomination for the position of Café or Restaurant Manager. The decision was made by P. Maishman of the Tribunal.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. This clause pertains to the nomination of a position and requires, among other things, that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, that the employer be the nominator, that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available to the applicant, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had been nominated by A & C Hales Family Trust for the specified position, and that the position and employer were consistent with the nomination application. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that a previous decision (Case Number 1831094) had set aside a departmental refusal and approved the nomination, finding that the applicant met the requirements of regulation 5.19. The Tribunal was satisfied that the nomination had not been withdrawn, the position remained available, and the visa application was lodged within the prescribed timeframe. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that clause 187.233 was met.
Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the first named applicant meets clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. For the secondary applicant, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for consideration of the remaining criteria for the grant of the visa.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. This clause pertains to the nomination of a position and requires, among other things, that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, that the employer be the nominator, that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available to the applicant, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had been nominated by A & C Hales Family Trust for the specified position, and that the position and employer were consistent with the nomination application. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that a previous decision (Case Number 1831094) had set aside a departmental refusal and approved the nomination, finding that the applicant met the requirements of regulation 5.19. The Tribunal was satisfied that the nomination had not been withdrawn, the position remained available, and the visa application was lodged within the prescribed timeframe. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that clause 187.233 was met.
Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the first named applicant meets clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. For the secondary applicant, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for consideration of the remaining criteria for the grant of the visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0