Kunwar (Migration)

[2021] AATA 258

Kunwar (Migration) [2021] AATA 258 (9 February 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Naresh Kunwar
Mrs Laxmi Kunwar

CASE NUMBER:  1810438

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/1411900

MEMBER:Karen McNamara

DATE:9 February 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 09 February 2021 at 2:49pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – temporary residence transition stream – subject of approved position nomination – refusal of related nomination application set aside on review – member of family unit – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION          
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19, Schedule 2, cl 186.223(2)

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 April 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 18 April 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 Mr Naresh Kunwar (the applicant) is seeking the visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Cook (ANZSCO 351411).

5. On 3 April 2018, the delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, because on 28 February 2018, the nomination application lodged by Manmaruya Hurstville Pty Ltd was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs.

6. The applicants applied to the Tribunal on 13 April 2018, for review of the delegate’s decision.

7. On 1 December 2020, the applicants represented by Mr Naresh Kunwar appeared before the Tribunal via telephone, to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr Hideki Goto (the nominator) in the related matter for the nomination review application (AAT Case file 1807515). The related matters were heard concurrently in a combined hearing. Evidence provided by the nominator was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Japanese and English languages.

8. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicants. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants were given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

9. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent. The representative attended the hearing.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

11. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.186.223(2).

    Nomination of a position

12. Clause 186.223 as applicable in this case is set out in full in the attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that the position to which the application relates is the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Temporary Residence Transition stream that identifies the visa applicant. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration that was required to be made as part of the current visa application.

13. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·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.

14. The nominating employer, Manmaruya Hurstville Pty Ltd applied to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection for approval of a nomination in relation to the position of Cook (ANZSCO 351411). That nomination was refused by the Department and consequently the applicants visa applications were refused.

15. Manmaruya Hurstville Pty Ltd, applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision not to approve the nomination (AAT Case No.1807515). On 9 February 2021, the Tribunal set aside the Department’s decision and substituted a new decision to approve the nomination under r.5.19 of the Regulations. Therefore, the applicant satisfies cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

16. The second named applicant (Mrs Laxmi Kunwar), applied on the basis of being a member of the family unit of the first named applicant (Mr Naresh Kunwar). The application by Mrs Laxmi Kunwar will be determined by reference to the outcome of Mr Naresh Kunwar’s application on remittal to the Department for consideration.

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

    DECISION

18. 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.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

    Karen McNamara
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    186.223(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 subregulation 5.19(3); and

    (b)in relation to which the applicant is identified as the holder of a Subclass 457 … visa; and

    (c)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 Minister has approved the nomination.

    (3)     The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (3A)    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.

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

    (5)     The application for the visa is made no more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.