PATEL (Migration)
[2023] AATA 3825
•11 November 2023
PATEL (Migration) [2023] AATA 3825 (11 November 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS: Mr Bhagvatbhai Shaileshkumar PATEL
Mrs Aayushiben Bhagvat PATELREPRESENTATIVE: Ms Jee Eun Han (MARN: 0850073)
CASE NUMBER: 1927733
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2019/1488288
MEMBER:Susan Reece Jones
DATE:11 November 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application 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 11 November 2023 at 5:09pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – position of Call or Contact Centre Manager – nomination approved upon review – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 186.223; r 1.13STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 23 September 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants applied for the visas on 25 March 2019. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).
The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 186 visa are set out in Part 186 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.
In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Call or Contact Centre Manager (ANZSCO – 149211)
The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nominator’s nomination did not satisfy that there is a genuine need for the applicant to employ the nominee to work in the nominated position.
In reaching a decision, the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s.360(2)(a) of the Act.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the relevant nomination has been approved as required by cl.186.223.
Nomination of a position
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.
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 reg 1.13A and reg 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.
The applicant applied for a visa on the basis of a nomination made by BHF Couriers Express Pty Ltd. The employer nomination in which the applicant is identified as the relevant 457 visa holder and against which he made the relevant declaration at the time of the visa application, was refused by the Department on 25 July 2019.
The nominator applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision not to approve the relevant nomination. On 11 November 2023, the Tribunal set aside the Department’s decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
As the relevant nomination in respect of the applicant has now been approved, the applicant meets the requirements in cl.186.223(2). Therefore, given the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.
As the Tribunal is remitting the applicant of the first name visa applicant with a finding that he meets the requirements of clause.186.223(2), the remaining criteria for the applicant should now be reconsidered. In addition, the application of the second named visa applicant should also now be reconsidered in full.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the application 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
Susan Reece Jones
MemberATTACHMENT A
186.223(1) The position to which the application relates is the position:
(a)nominated in an application for approval that:
(i)identifies the applicant in relation to the position; and
(ii)is made in relation to a visa in a Temporary Residence Transition stream; 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.
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
0
0
0