Luk (Migration)
[2020] AATA 3539
•13 August 2020
Luk (Migration) [2020] AATA 3539 (13 August 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Ms Sze Man Luk
CASE NUMBER: 1804662
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2017/1357519
MEMBER:Terrence Baxter
DATE:13 August 2020
PLACE OF DECISION: Brisbane
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 criterion for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:
·cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Statement made on 13 August 2020 at 2:11pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Retail Store Manager – subject of an approved nomination – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 187.233STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 12 April 2017. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).
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.
In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Retail Store Manager for the Trustee for BAAS Rock Unit Trust (the nominator).
The delegate refused to grant the visa on 12 February 2018 because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations which required her to be the subject of an approved nomination. The delegate found that the nomination lodged by the nominator was refused on 22 January 2018 and that accordingly the applicant did not satisfy cl.187.233(3) and did not meet cl.187.233 as a whole as required.
The applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal on 22 February 2018.
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 applicant. 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 applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 26 May 2020 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent. The representative also attended the Tribunal hearing by telephone.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether there is an approved nomination.
Nomination of a position
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.
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.
Records of the Department of Home Affairs (formerly the Department of Immigration and Border Protection) (the Department) indicate that the nominator made an application to the Department to have the position of Retail Store Manager approved, with the applicant as nominee, on 4 April 2017. The nomination application was refused on 22 January 2018 and the nominator sought review of that decision with the Tribunal on 8 February 2018.
On 13 August 2020, the Tribunal (as presently constituted) set aside the Department’s decision to refuse to approve the nomination and substituted a decision to approve the nomination by the Trustee for BAAS Rock Unit Trust.
Therefore, cl.187.233 is met.
Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.
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 criterion for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:
·cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Terrence Baxter
MemberATTACHMENT 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.
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
0
0
0