Lakkapuram Mohanasundaram (Migration)

[2019] AATA 5468

Lakkapuram Mohanasundaram (Migration) [2019] AATA 5468 (2 December 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Karthick Lakkapuram Mohanasundaram

CASE NUMBER:  1729751

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2016/788881

MEMBER:Amanda Mendes Da Costa

DATE:2 December 2019

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:

·cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 02 December 2019 at 9:11am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – subject of approved nomination of position – employer’s nomination application refused – refusal set aside on review – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1959 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 187.233

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 Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 25 February 2016. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).

3. The criteria for a Subclass 187 visa are set out in Part 187 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 two alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, or the Direct Entry stream.

4. In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Retail Manager.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the delegate was not satisfied that there was an approved nomination for a position for the applicant.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 August 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was held as a combined hearing with the nomination refusal case of the applicant’s prospective employer, Four Hand Pty Ltd.  The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr Bharathkumara Manoharan, a director of the company.

7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant has an approved nomination for the nominated position of Retail Manager.

   Nomination of a position

10. Clause 187.233 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, located in regional Australia. 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.

11. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

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

12. The Tribunal notes that on 29 November 2019 it made a decision, approving the nomination application by Four Hands Pty Ltd for a position for the applicant.  The Tribunal is satisfied that:

    ·the company who made the nomination will employ the applicant;

    ·the nomination, which has now been approved, has not been withdrawn;

    ·there is no adverse information known to the Department about Four Hands Pty Ltd or an person associated with the company; and

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

13. Therefore, cl.187.233 is met.

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

    DECISION

15. The Tribunal remits the application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:

    ·cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Amanda Mendes Da Costa
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    187.233(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)(ii); or

    (ii)subregulation 5.19(4) as in force before 1 July 2012; and

    (b)in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114C(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 no more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.