Leung (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 5335
•22 November 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Leung (Migration) [2021] AATA 5335
[2021] AATA 5335
22 November 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm a decision not to grant Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream, to the applicants. The primary applicant sought to rely on a nomination made by Preston Rowe Paterson (Warrnambool) Pty Ltd.
The AAT was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream, specifically focusing on clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the nominated position must be approved, the employer must be the nominator, the nomination must not have been withdrawn, there must be no adverse information or it must be reasonable to disregard it, the position must remain available, and the visa application must be made within six months of the nomination's approval. The AAT also considered whether the second applicant met the secondary criteria as a family unit member or the primary criteria in their own right.
The Tribunal found that the nomination lodged by Preston Rowe Paterson (Warrnambool) Pty Ltd had not been approved at the time of the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the primary applicant failed to meet the requirements of clause 187.233. As the primary applicant did not meet the criteria for the Direct Entry stream, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision regarding the second applicant, as they did not meet the secondary criteria as a family unit member and there was no evidence they met the primary criteria independently.
The AAT was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream, specifically focusing on clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the nominated position must be approved, the employer must be the nominator, the nomination must not have been withdrawn, there must be no adverse information or it must be reasonable to disregard it, the position must remain available, and the visa application must be made within six months of the nomination's approval. The AAT also considered whether the second applicant met the secondary criteria as a family unit member or the primary criteria in their own right.
The Tribunal found that the nomination lodged by Preston Rowe Paterson (Warrnambool) Pty Ltd had not been approved at the time of the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the primary applicant failed to meet the requirements of clause 187.233. As the primary applicant did not meet the criteria for the Direct Entry stream, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision regarding the second applicant, as they did not meet the secondary criteria as a family unit member and there was no evidence they met the primary criteria independently.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Appeal
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Leung (Migration) [2021] AATA 5335
Most Recent Citation
Andrews and National Disability Insurance Agency [2022] AATA 1532
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Mora v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
[2018] FCA 1819