Ritikos (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 3919
•6 September 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Ritikos (Migration) [2018] AATA 3919
[2018] AATA 3919
6 September 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically the Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme, Temporary Residence Transition stream. The applicant sought review of a decision concerning the nominated position of Advertising Specialist. The Tribunal, presided over by Warren Stooke AM, ultimately concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had an approved nominated position in which to be engaged by Web Design Market Pty Ltd, as required by clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This involved assessing whether the nominated position was approved, had not been withdrawn, was still available to the applicant, and whether the visa application was made within the prescribed timeframe after the nomination approval. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, or if such information could reasonably be disregarded.
The Tribunal found that the nominating sponsor had provided evidence of an ongoing employment contract for a period exceeding two years, and confirmed that the position had not been withdrawn and remained available, with the applicant currently employed in it. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa application was made prior to the approval of the nominated position, and that no adverse information pertaining to the applicant existed at the time of the decision. The Tribunal also confirmed the applicant's qualifications and experience met the requirements for the nominated ANZSCO code.
Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa for reconsideration by the Minister. The Tribunal directed that the applicant met the criteria under clause 186.233 and clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, leaving the assessment of remaining visa criteria to the Minister.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had an approved nominated position in which to be engaged by Web Design Market Pty Ltd, as required by clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This involved assessing whether the nominated position was approved, had not been withdrawn, was still available to the applicant, and whether the visa application was made within the prescribed timeframe after the nomination approval. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, or if such information could reasonably be disregarded.
The Tribunal found that the nominating sponsor had provided evidence of an ongoing employment contract for a period exceeding two years, and confirmed that the position had not been withdrawn and remained available, with the applicant currently employed in it. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa application was made prior to the approval of the nominated position, and that no adverse information pertaining to the applicant existed at the time of the decision. The Tribunal also confirmed the applicant's qualifications and experience met the requirements for the nominated ANZSCO code.
Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa for reconsideration by the Minister. The Tribunal directed that the applicant met the criteria under clause 186.233 and clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, leaving the assessment of remaining visa criteria to the Minister.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Ritikos (Migration) [2018] AATA 3919
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0