MAGINNIS (Migration)

[2019] AATA 4157

MAGINNIS (Migration) [2019] AATA 4157 (10 September 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Erin Elizabeth MAGINNIS
Mr Alexander Maginnis

CASE NUMBER:  1724039

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/2228574

MEMBER:Karen McNamara

DATE:10 September 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

·cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 10 September 2019 at 12:47pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Hairdresser – subject of an approved nomination – nomination application now approved by Tribunal – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 186.223

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 on 3 October 2017 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 23 June 2017. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).

3. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 186 visa are set out in Part 186 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 three alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the Direct Entry stream, or the Labour Agreement stream.

4. In the present case, the first named applicant Ms Erin Elizabeth Maginnis (the applicant) is seeking the visa in Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Hairdresser (ANZSCO 391111).  

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination of a position in relation to the applicant had not been approved.

6. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 3 September 2019. Ms Erin Maginnis provided evidence. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr Barney Martin and    Ms Angela Blunt on behalf of the nominator.

7. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

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 first named applicant (Ms Erin Maginnis) meets the requirements of cl.186.223.

   Nomination of a position

10. Clause 186.223 as applicable in this case is set out in full in the attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that the position to which the application relates is the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Temporary Residence Transition stream that identifies the visa applicant. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration that was required to be made as part of the current visa application.

11. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·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 nominating employer, Barney Martin Hairdressing Pty Ltd, applied to the Department of Immigration for approval of a nomination in relation to the position of Hairdresser (ANZSCO 391111). That nomination was refused by the Department and consequently the applicants’ visa applications were refused.

13. Barney Martin Hairdressing Pty Ltd, applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision not to approve the nomination (AAT case No. 1719448). On 10 September 2019, the Tribunal set aside the Department’s decision and substituted a new decision to approve the nomination under r.5.19(3) of the Regulations.

14. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that:

    ·The person who will employ the applicant in the nominated position (that is Barney Martin Hairdressing Pty Ltd) is the person who made the nomination.

    ·Barney Martin Hairdressing Pty Ltd’s nomination for the position of Hairdresser has been approved by the Tribunal and has not been subsequently withdrawn.

    ·Having regard to the information on the related Tribunal and Department files in respect of the nomination application, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that there is adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator.

    ·The  nominator advised at hearing the position is still available to Ms Maginnis; and

    ·The visa application was made on 23 June 2017 and was therefore not made more than six months after the nomination was approved.

15. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal finds that the requirements of cl.186.223 are met.

16. Mr Alexander Maginnis applied on the basis of being a member of the family unit of the first named applicant. The application by Mr Alexander Maginnis will be determined by reference to the outcome of Ms Erin Maginnis’ application on remittal to the Department for consideration.

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

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal remits the applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

    ·cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Karen McNamara
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    186.223(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 subregulation 5.19(3); and

    (b)in relation to which the applicant is identified as the holder of a Subclass 457 … visa; and

    (c)in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114B(3)(d) of Schedule 1 was made in the application for the grant of the visa.

    (2)      The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (3)      The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (3A)    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.

    (4)      The position is still available to the applicant.

    (5)      The application for the visa is made no more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.