Rimpal (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3459

Rimpal (Migration) [2019] AATA 3459 (18 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs  Rimpal
Mr Gurmail Singh
Mr Divgun Virk

CASE NUMBER:  1821690

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/1986034

MEMBER:Bridget Cullen

DATE:18 June 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

·cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 18 June 2019 at 7:12pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Corporate Services Manager – nomination refused – decision substituted – nomination approved – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 1.13, 5.19, Schedule 2, cl 186.223

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 19 July 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 5 June 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 first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Corporate Services Manager (ANZSCO 132111).

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the applicant is not the subject of a nomination which the Minister has approved.

6. The Tribunal hearing was held on 14 June 2019, and was conducted jointly, along with the review of the related nomination application. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the Director of the Nominator, Mr Kesomi Mahe Tavake.

7. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent, who attended the Tribunal hearing and made submissions on their behalf.

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 a nomination which the Minister has approved.

10. The nomination application was refused by the Department on 18 June 2018 as the delegate found that r.5.19(3)(g) was not satisfied.  

    Nomination of a position

11. Clause 186.223 as applicable in this case is set out in full in the attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that the position to which the application relates is the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Temporary Residence Transition stream that identifies the visa applicant. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration that was required to be made as part of the current visa application.

12. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·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.

13. On 18 June 2019, the Tribunal finalised the nomination review application, setting aside the decision under review, and approving the nomination. The applicant is now the subject of an approved nomination.

14. The Tribunal further finds that there is no adverse information known to Immigration concerning the applicant or any associated person. The position of Corporate Services Manager is still available to the applicant with the nominator, and the visa application was made within the requisite period.

15. Therefore, cl.186.223 is met.

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

    DECISION

17. The Tribunal remits the applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

    ·Cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Bridget Cullen
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    186.223(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 subregulation 5.19(3); and

    (b)in relation to which the applicant is identified as the holder of a Subclass 457 … visa; and

    (c)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 Minister has approved the nomination.

    (3)     The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (3A)    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.

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

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