Mortazavi (Migration)
Case
•
[2020] AATA 4215
•4 August 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Mortazavi (Migration) [2020] AATA 4215
[2020] AATA 4215
4 August 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, for the position of Private Teacher and Tutor. The applicant sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of their visa application. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically concerning the approval of a nomination for the position.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires, among other things, that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an approved nomination. This clause mandates that the nominator must be the prospective employer, the nomination must have been approved and not withdrawn, and certain conditions regarding adverse information and the timing of the visa application relative to the nomination approval must be met.
The Tribunal found that the nominator, Aryana iHelp Centre Pty Ltd, had lodged an application for approval of a nomination, which was refused by the delegate on 18 October 2017. The nominator sought review of this refusal. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination application on 17 July 2020. Subsequently, the Tribunal notified the applicant of this outcome and invited comments, explaining that failure to meet the nomination approval requirement would lead to the affirmation of the Department's decision. No response was received from the applicant within the specified timeframe. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet clause 187.233(3) as the nomination had not been approved.
As the primary applicant failed to satisfy the visa requirements, the Tribunal also affirmed the decision in relation to the secondary applicants, who could not satisfy clause 187.311 as they were not members of the family unit of a person holding a subclass 187 visa. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas to the applicants.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires, among other things, that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an approved nomination. This clause mandates that the nominator must be the prospective employer, the nomination must have been approved and not withdrawn, and certain conditions regarding adverse information and the timing of the visa application relative to the nomination approval must be met.
The Tribunal found that the nominator, Aryana iHelp Centre Pty Ltd, had lodged an application for approval of a nomination, which was refused by the delegate on 18 October 2017. The nominator sought review of this refusal. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination application on 17 July 2020. Subsequently, the Tribunal notified the applicant of this outcome and invited comments, explaining that failure to meet the nomination approval requirement would lead to the affirmation of the Department's decision. No response was received from the applicant within the specified timeframe. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet clause 187.233(3) as the nomination had not been approved.
As the primary applicant failed to satisfy the visa requirements, the Tribunal also affirmed the decision in relation to the secondary applicants, who could not satisfy clause 187.311 as they were not members of the family unit of a person holding a subclass 187 visa. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas to the applicants.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Mortazavi (Migration) [2020] AATA 4215
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0