Kumar (Migration)

Case

[2019] AATA 1496

4 January 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Kumar (Migration) [2019] AATA 1496 [2019] AATA 1496 4 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa, Direct Entry stream, for the position of Motor Mechanic (General). The applicant, Mr. Kumar, sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of his visa application. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination for the position had been approved in accordance with the requirements of cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if an approved nomination existed for Mr. Kumar's visa application, considering the specific criteria outlined in cl.187.233. These criteria include that the position must be nominated in regional Australia, the employer must be the nominator, the nomination must have been approved and not withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to the Department or such information must be disregarded, the position must remain available, and the visa application must be lodged within six months of the nomination's approval. The Tribunal also had regard to the Full Federal Court's decision in *Singh v MIBP*, which held that the nomination process is a "once-off" event.

The Tribunal reasoned that, based on the available information and the principles established in *Singh v MIBP*, an approved nomination was a prerequisite for the visa application. It noted that publicly available information indicated the sponsoring company had been placed in liquidation prior to the hearing. As the nomination process was considered a "once-off" event, and there was no evidence of an approved nomination in relation to Mr. Kumar's application, the Tribunal concluded it must affirm the delegate's decision. Mr. Kumar acknowledged the company's liquidation and stated he was now employed by the new owners of the business.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. It advised Mr. Kumar that if he wished, he could seek ministerial intervention directly, providing detailed submissions and evidence to the Minister, and suggested he might seek professional advice in this regard.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Jurisdiction

  • Natural Justice

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

3

Statutory Material Cited

0

Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCCA 564
Hasan v MIBP [2016] FCCA 1049
Singh v MIBP [2016] FCCA 2229