Okada (Migration)

[2020] AATA 1615

Okada (Migration) [2020] AATA 1615 (11 May 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Hirotaka Okada

CASE NUMBER:  1813718

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/1376208

MEMBER:Amanda Ducrou

DATE:11 May 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

·cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 11 May 2020 at 6:41pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) –­ Temporary Residence Transition stream – Chef – subject of ­an approved nomination – 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 1 May 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 13 April 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 applicant is seeking the visa in Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Chef (ANZSCO 351311).

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because there was no approved nomination.

6. On 13 January 2020 the Tribunal received written submissions and documents from the applicant in support of the application. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 January 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr Jarrod Briffa representing the nominator.

7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent, Mr David Bongiorno.

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 there is an approved nomination.

   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 of the Regulations); 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 applicant applied for the visa on the basis of the nomination made by Kinfolk Enterprise on 13 April 2017 for the position of Chef (ANZSCO 351311) in respect of the applicant. On 19 March 2018 a delegate of the Department decided to refuse to approve the nomination. Kinfolk Enterprise applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

13. On 29 April 2020 the Tribunal decided to set aside the Department’s decision and substituted a decision to approve the nomination in respect of the applicant, who was the holder of a Subclass 457 visa at the time when the nomination was made, under r.5.19(3) of the Regulations.

14. As the relevant nomination in respect of the applicant has been approved, the applicant meets the requirements in cl.186.223(2).

15. Therefore, cl.186.223 is met.

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

    DECISION

17. The Tribunal remits the application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

    ·cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Amanda Ducrou
    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.