Lokawidjaja (Migration)
Case
•
[2023] AATA 914
•4 April 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Lokawidjaja (Migration) [2023] AATA 914
[2023] AATA 914
4 April 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Mr. Lokawidjaja, sought review of a decision to refuse him an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 Temporary Residence Transition stream. The nominated occupation was Cook, and the applicant's employer was Alanas Holdings Pty Ltd, trading as C1 Café & Brasserie. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for this visa subclass, particularly concerning the approved nomination and the availability of the nominated position.
The central legal issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which governs the nomination requirements for the Temporary Residence Transition stream. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination that identifies the applicant and has not been withdrawn, among other conditions. The Tribunal considered whether a subsequent nomination or a new employer could satisfy this criterion, referencing relevant case law.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's nominated employer, Alanas Holdings Pty Ltd, had ceased trading, rendering the nominated position unavailable and the original nomination invalid. The Tribunal found that there was no approved nomination for the applicant by his original employer, meaning he did not meet clause 186.223(2) and, consequently, clause 186.223 as a whole. The Tribunal further held, applying persuasive obiter dicta from *Singh v MIBP* and *Patel v MHA*, that even a new nomination by a different employer, or a subsequent nomination by the same employer for the same position, would not satisfy the criterion. This is because the visa application must relate to the specific position in respect of which the declaration in Schedule 1 was made, and that position must exist at the time the nomination is submitted.
As the applicant failed to meet the essential criteria for the Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa.
The central legal issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which governs the nomination requirements for the Temporary Residence Transition stream. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination that identifies the applicant and has not been withdrawn, among other conditions. The Tribunal considered whether a subsequent nomination or a new employer could satisfy this criterion, referencing relevant case law.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's nominated employer, Alanas Holdings Pty Ltd, had ceased trading, rendering the nominated position unavailable and the original nomination invalid. The Tribunal found that there was no approved nomination for the applicant by his original employer, meaning he did not meet clause 186.223(2) and, consequently, clause 186.223 as a whole. The Tribunal further held, applying persuasive obiter dicta from *Singh v MIBP* and *Patel v MHA*, that even a new nomination by a different employer, or a subsequent nomination by the same employer for the same position, would not satisfy the criterion. This is because the visa application must relate to the specific position in respect of which the declaration in Schedule 1 was made, and that position must exist at the time the nomination is submitted.
As the applicant failed to meet the essential criteria for the Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Lokawidjaja (Migration) [2023] AATA 914
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Patel v Minister for Home Affairs
[2019] FCA 1228
Hasan v MIBP
[2016] FCCA 1049
Kaur v MIBP
[2017] FCCA 564