Rehmani (Migration)

[2021] AATA 4335

Rehmani (Migration) [2021] AATA 4335 (29 March 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Shahzad Rehmani
Mrs Fozia Yasmeen
Master Gull Sher Rehmani

CASE NUMBER:  1911394

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2016/1093712

MEMBER:Mary Sheargold

DATE:29 March 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 29 March 2021 at 11:39am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Cook – subject of an approved nomination – non-appearance before the Tribunal – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 362B, 379A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), cl 187.233

CASES
Singh v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 105

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 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 14 March 2016. 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 (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 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 the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Cook (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 application by Minha Holdings Pty Ltd for the position of Cook had not been approved.

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

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The issue in the present case is whether there is an approved nomination.

9. On 18 February 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the review applicants advising that it had considered all the material it had about the application but could not make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the review applicants to give evidence and present arguments at a telephone hearing on 26 March 2021. The invitation stated that if they did not attend the telephone hearing and an adjournment was not granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the case without further notice. The Tribunal also sent them SMS reminders about the hearing 5 business days and one business day before the scheduled hearing.

10. On 9 March 2021, the applicants advised the Tribunal that they wanted to give oral evidence. However, the applicants did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the time and place at which they were scheduled to appear. Having reviewed the Tribunal file, the Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicants were properly invited to a hearing in accordance with s.379A(5), the invitation has not been returned to sender, and that SMS reminders were sent about the hearing on two separate occasions.  In these circumstances, and pursuant to s.362B of the Act, the Tribunal has decided to make its decision on the review without taking any further action to enable the applicants to appear before it.

    Nomination of a position

11. 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.

12. 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 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.

13. On 22 February 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the review applicants pursuant to s.359A of the Act, inviting them to provide comments in writing on information that the Tribunal considered would be part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.  That adverse information was that the application for approval of the nominated position of Cook in respect of the first named visa applicant, made by Minha Holdings Pty Ltd, was refused by a delegate of the Minister of Home Affairs, and that the nominator had sought a review of that decision, but that the Tribunal had found it had no jurisdiction to review the decision.  The letter outlined that this information is relevant to the review because it is a requirement for the grant of the visa that the position specified in the visa application is the subject of an approved nomination.

14. The Tribunal’s letter noted that the applicant’s comments on or response to the information above should be made in writing by 9 March 2021.  On 9 March 2021, the first named visa applicant wrote to the Tribunal and stated: “I had provided all my requested documents, (my qualification documents) for visa application but I was traped (sic) by nomination.”  As at the date of this decision, the review applicants have received no further comments or response from the review applicants.  As stated above, the review applicants failed to attend the scheduled telephone hearing on 26 March 2021.

15. The Tribunal notes that the nominator’s nomination application was refused by the Department. As the nomination application for the position to which the applicant’s Subclass 187 visa application relates has not been approved, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not meet the criteria in cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

16. In particular, in reaching this finding, the Tribunal has considered the comments made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Singh v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 105, where Mortimer J (Bromberg and Jagot JJ agreeing) stated that:

    The words in cl.187.233 ‘position nominated in an application for approval that seeks to meet the requirements of’ reg 5.19 refer to a factual event: that is, the words refer to an employer nomination which was in fact made, and about which the visa applicant made the required declaration in the visa application.  The ‘position’ referred to is a particular job with a particular employer that exists at a particular point in time, and in a particular set of factual circumstances.  The point in time is the point at which the employer nomination is submitted for approval under reg 5.19(1). It is to that act that the visa applicant’s declaration in the visa application is directed…An examination of the nature and range of matters set out in reg 5.19 discloses an intention that only very particular positions of employment, with a specified set of attributes, which are to be verified through the mechanism of a ministerial approval of an employer nomination made at the time of application, are intended to allow a visa applicant to secure a visa of this kind. The scheme intends it to be a ‘once off’ process, so that the visa application is considered against a specific employer nomination and a specific approval of that nomination by the Minister (or his delegate).[1]

    [1] Singh v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 105 at [88]-[90].

17. In this matter, the Tribunal notes that because there is no approved nomination for the first named applicant’s visa application, he cannot overcome his current inability to meet cl.187.233 in relation to his application.  The nomination by Minha Holdings Pty Ltd was specifically linked to his visa application, and that nomination was not, and now cannot be, approved.

18. Therefore, cl 187.233(3) is not met.

19. 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.

20. Pursuant to cl.187.311, the Tribunal must also affirm the decision to refuse to grant Subclass 187 visas to the secondary applicants as they are not the member of a family unit of a person who holds a Subclass 187 visa, and there is no evidence that they meet the primary criteria in their own right.

    DECISION

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

    Mary Sheargold
    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.