Park (Migration)
Case
•
[2017] AATA 624
•10 April 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Park (Migration) [2017] AATA 624
[2017] AATA 624
10 April 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme), under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse the nomination. The nominator, Jesus Love Church Inc., had applied for approval of the nominated position, which was refused by the Department. Jesus Love Church Inc. then applied to the Tribunal for a review of this refusal.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.186.233 of the Regulations, specifically concerning the nomination of a position. This clause requires, among other things, that the nomination has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered whether it had jurisdiction to address the applicant's submission that the withdrawal of the review application by the nominator was contrary to the congregation's wishes and that the applicant wished to have the nomination withdrawal revoked.
The Tribunal reasoned that the nominator had withdrawn its application for review of the nomination refusal on 12 January 2017. As a result, the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to review that specific application, and that matter was finalised. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it lacked the power to revoke the decision regarding the nomination, as it was a separate review application made by the nominator that had been withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the requirement for an approved and un-withdrawn nomination was not met. The Tribunal also noted that the secondary applicants, being family members, did not meet the primary criteria for the visa grant.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.186.233 of the Regulations, specifically concerning the nomination of a position. This clause requires, among other things, that the nomination has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered whether it had jurisdiction to address the applicant's submission that the withdrawal of the review application by the nominator was contrary to the congregation's wishes and that the applicant wished to have the nomination withdrawal revoked.
The Tribunal reasoned that the nominator had withdrawn its application for review of the nomination refusal on 12 January 2017. As a result, the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to review that specific application, and that matter was finalised. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it lacked the power to revoke the decision regarding the nomination, as it was a separate review application made by the nominator that had been withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the requirement for an approved and un-withdrawn nomination was not met. The Tribunal also noted that the secondary applicants, being family members, did not meet the primary criteria for the visa grant.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Park (Migration) [2017] AATA 624
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0