Restrepo Florez (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 5334
•10 December 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Restrepo Florez (Migration) [2021] AATA 5334
[2021] AATA 5334
10 December 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Restrepo Florez (Migration), involving an applicant seeking a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), under the Direct Entry stream for the position of Office Manager. The applicant's case was subject to a review of a declined request for ministerial intervention.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause necessitates that the position be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination, and that the nominator be the prospective employer. Further, for nominations made on or after 1 July 2017, the nomination must identify the applicant, and the nomination must have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered whether there was any adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, and if the position remained available to the applicant within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the status of the nomination application. Departmental records indicated the nomination was lodged on 1 July 2016. However, this nomination application was refused on 10 October 2018. While the nominator sought review of this refusal, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination on 22 November 2021. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirement for an approved nomination under clause 187.233(3) was not met. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to respond to this information, which was considered a reason for affirming the decision under review.
The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed because the essential criterion of an approved nomination was not satisfied. The refusal of the nomination application, and the subsequent affirmation of that refusal by the Tribunal, meant that the applicant could not meet the requirements for the Subclass 187 visa.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause necessitates that the position be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination, and that the nominator be the prospective employer. Further, for nominations made on or after 1 July 2017, the nomination must identify the applicant, and the nomination must have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered whether there was any adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, and if the position remained available to the applicant within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the status of the nomination application. Departmental records indicated the nomination was lodged on 1 July 2016. However, this nomination application was refused on 10 October 2018. While the nominator sought review of this refusal, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination on 22 November 2021. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirement for an approved nomination under clause 187.233(3) was not met. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to respond to this information, which was considered a reason for affirming the decision under review.
The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed because the essential criterion of an approved nomination was not satisfied. The refusal of the nomination application, and the subsequent affirmation of that refusal by the Tribunal, meant that the applicant could not meet the requirements for the Subclass 187 visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0