Macha (Migration)
Case
•
[2023] AATA 1522
•11 April 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Macha (Migration) [2023] AATA 1522
[2023] AATA 1522
11 April 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to satisfy the criteria for this visa subclass. The Tribunal, constituted by Amanda Mendes Da Costa, was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria in clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233. This clause, as applicable, mandates that the nominated position must be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination, and that the nominator must be the prospective employer. Furthermore, if the nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, the applicant must be identified in relation to the position. The clause also requires that the nomination has not been withdrawn, there is no adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons (or such information is reasonable to disregard), the position remains available, and the visa application was lodged within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the application for approval of the nominated position made by the nominator for the applicant had been refused by a delegate of the Minister. This refusal was subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal on 9 September 2022. Consequently, the nominator's application for the nominated position had not been approved. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that clause 187.233 was not met.
Given that the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream and had failed to meet the essential requirements of clause 187.233, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The Tribunal therefore made an order affirming the decision not to grant the applicant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233. This clause, as applicable, mandates that the nominated position must be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination, and that the nominator must be the prospective employer. Furthermore, if the nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, the applicant must be identified in relation to the position. The clause also requires that the nomination has not been withdrawn, there is no adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons (or such information is reasonable to disregard), the position remains available, and the visa application was lodged within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the application for approval of the nominated position made by the nominator for the applicant had been refused by a delegate of the Minister. This refusal was subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal on 9 September 2022. Consequently, the nominator's application for the nominated position had not been approved. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that clause 187.233 was not met.
Given that the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream and had failed to meet the essential requirements of clause 187.233, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The Tribunal therefore made an order affirming the decision not to grant the applicant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Macha (Migration) [2023] AATA 1522
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2002] FCA 617
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li
[2013] HCA 18
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh
[2014] FCAFC 1