Ranpreet Kaur (Migration)

[2019] AATA 6241

Ranpreet Kaur (Migration) [2019] AATA 6241 (11 October 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs  Ranpreet Kaur
Mr Jatinder pal Singh
Ms Gurmannat Kaur
Mr Gurtaj Singh Sandhu

CASE NUMBER:  1912713

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/273891

MEMBERS:Bridget Cullen (Presiding)

Peter Ranson

DATE:11 October 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.

Statement made on 11 October 2019 at 11:52am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – sponsoring employer’s position nomination refused – refusal affirmed on review – no response to tribunals’ s 359A letter – members of family unit – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359A

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 187.233(3), 187.311

CASES

Huo v MIMA [2002] FCA 617

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 Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 20 January 2017. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).

3. The criteria for a Subclass 187 visa are set out in Part 187 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 two alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, or the Direct Entry stream.

4. In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Chef – ANZSCO 351411.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination associated with the visa application was not approved by the Minister.

6. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 19 July 2019 in a combined hearing with Halal Restaurant Supplies Pty Ltd (the nominating company), to give evidence and present arguments.

7. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in the present case is whether the nomination to which the visa application relates to is approved.

   Nomination of a position

10. Clause 187.233 as applicable in this case is set out in full in an attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration made as part of the current visa application. In addition, where the associated nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, it must identify the applicant in relation to the position.

11. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made nomination

    ·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); 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. On 20 September 2019, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the grant of an employer nomination lodged by Halal Restaurant Supplies Pty Ltd.

13. On 25 September 2019, the Tribunal wrote, under s.359A of the Act, inviting to applicant to comment on or respond to the information, being the affirmed decision and how the applicant may not meet cl.187.233(3) as a result. At the time of this decision, the Tribunal has not received a response.

14. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. No claims have been made in respect of the other visa streams. As the requirements that must be met by a person seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.

15. As the primary applicant does not meet cl.187.233, therefore not the holder of a Subclass 187 visa, the secondary applicants do not meet cl.187.311, and their decisions under review must also be affirmed.

    DECISION

16. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.

    Bridget Cullen
    Member

    
    

    Peter Ranson
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    187.233(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:

    (i)subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii); or

    (ii)subregulation 5.19(4) as in force before 1 July 2012; and

    (b)in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114C(3)(d) of Schedule 1 was made in the application for the grant of the visa.

    (2)     The person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the nomination.

    (3)     The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (4)     The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (4A)    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.

    (5)     The position is still available to the applicant.

    (6)     The application for the visa is made no more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.