Rea (Migration)

[2020] AATA 4130

Rea (Migration) [2020] AATA 4130 (29 September 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Ryan James Rea

CASE NUMBER:  1811539

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/3834146

MEMBER:Michelle East

DATE:29 September 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

·cl.186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 29 September 2020 at 3:31pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Landscape Gardener – subject of an approved nomination ­­– decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 186.233

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 on 20 April 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 18 October 2017. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).

3. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 186 visa are set out in Part 186 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 three alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the Direct Entry stream, or the Labour Agreement stream.

4. In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Landscape Gardener.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 September 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr De Jersey on behalf of the nominator.

7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is the subject of an approved nomination.

   Nomination of a position

10. Clause 186.233 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. 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 the 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. The applicant was nominated by DJ’s Facilities Pty Ltd for the position of Landscape Gardener.  The position is the same as in the 5.19 nomination application and the employer is the nominator.

13. The nomination was initially refused by the Department.  However, on 29 September 2020 this Tribunal made a decision to set aside the refusal and substitute a decision approving the nomination.

14. The Tribunal is satisfied that the nomination has not been withdrawn and that the position is still available to the applicant.  The Tribunal is also satisfied that the visa application was not made more than six months after the nomination of the position was approved.

15. There is no evidence before the Tribunal suggesting the possibility of an employer sponsor breach known to the Department about the nominator.

16. Given the above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant meets all the requirements of cl.186.233.

17. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal remits the application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

    ·cl.186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

    Michelle East
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    186.233(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)(i); or

    (ii)subregulation 5.19(2) as in force before 1 July 2012; and

    (aa)in relation to which the applicant is identified in the application under subparagraph 5.19(4)(a)(ii); and

    (b)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 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 not more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.