Pasaporte (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 3125
•21 May 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Pasaporte (Migration) [2019] AATA 3125
[2019] AATA 3125
21 May 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse her visa application, which was based on an employer nomination. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's nominated position had been approved in accordance with the relevant legislative criteria.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the nomination for the applicant's position as a Disabilities Services Officer had been approved. Specifically, the Tribunal considered clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations, which mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia, and identified the applicant in relation to that position. The Tribunal also had to ascertain whether a review of the nomination refusal had been lodged by the employer, as suggested by the applicant's representative.
The Tribunal found that the employer's nomination application had been refused by the Department on 23 August 2018, and no evidence existed on departmental or tribunal records to indicate that this refusal had been reviewed or that the nomination had subsequently been approved. Despite the applicant's belief that a review had been lodged, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirement of an approved nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision in respect of the secondary applicants, who applied as members of the first applicant's family unit.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the nomination for the applicant's position as a Disabilities Services Officer had been approved. Specifically, the Tribunal considered clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations, which mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia, and identified the applicant in relation to that position. The Tribunal also had to ascertain whether a review of the nomination refusal had been lodged by the employer, as suggested by the applicant's representative.
The Tribunal found that the employer's nomination application had been refused by the Department on 23 August 2018, and no evidence existed on departmental or tribunal records to indicate that this refusal had been reviewed or that the nomination had subsequently been approved. Despite the applicant's belief that a review had been lodged, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirement of an approved nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision in respect of the secondary applicants, who applied as members of the first applicant's family unit.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Pasaporte (Migration) [2019] AATA 3125
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0