PAVITTERJIT SINGH (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 5549
•10 October 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
PAVITTERJIT SINGH (Migration) [2018] AATA 5549
[2018] AATA 5549
10 October 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, by Pavitterjit Singh. The nominating employer was Café 33 Cairns Pty Ltd for the position of Café or Restaurant Manager. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically concerning the approval of the nomination.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination as required by clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations. This clause necessitates that the nominated position be located in regional Australia and that the nomination itself has been approved by the Minister and not subsequently withdrawn. A further issue arose regarding dependent applicants, who must be members of the family unit of a primary applicant holding a Subclass 187 visa.
The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination for the applicant's position had been affirmed as refused on 25 September 2018. Following this, the applicant was notified by way of a s.359A letter that, due to the affirmed refusal of the nomination, he likely did not meet the visa criteria. The applicant was invited to respond to this adverse information by 9 October 2018 but failed to do so, nor did he request an extension. The Tribunal was satisfied it had taken reasonable steps to offer the applicant an opportunity to be heard or to respond. Consequently, the Tribunal found that clause 187.233 was not met as there was no approved nomination. Furthermore, as the primary applicant did not hold a Subclass 187 visa, the dependent applicants could not satisfy their criteria.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination as required by clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations. This clause necessitates that the nominated position be located in regional Australia and that the nomination itself has been approved by the Minister and not subsequently withdrawn. A further issue arose regarding dependent applicants, who must be members of the family unit of a primary applicant holding a Subclass 187 visa.
The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination for the applicant's position had been affirmed as refused on 25 September 2018. Following this, the applicant was notified by way of a s.359A letter that, due to the affirmed refusal of the nomination, he likely did not meet the visa criteria. The applicant was invited to respond to this adverse information by 9 October 2018 but failed to do so, nor did he request an extension. The Tribunal was satisfied it had taken reasonable steps to offer the applicant an opportunity to be heard or to respond. Consequently, the Tribunal found that clause 187.233 was not met as there was no approved nomination. Furthermore, as the primary applicant did not hold a Subclass 187 visa, the dependent applicants could not satisfy their criteria.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0