Rogers (Migration)

[2019] AATA 2457

Rogers (Migration) [2019] AATA 2457 (17 May 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Shane Patrick Rogers

CASE NUMBER:  1714389

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2016/3531725

MEMBER:R. Skaros

DATE:17 May 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 17 May 2019 at 2:58pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Program or Project Administrator – nomination refused – decision substituted – nomination approved – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 Immigration and Border Protection on 14 June 2017 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 24 October 2016. 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 Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Program or Project Administrator with Louth Civil Pty Ltd.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the associated nomination was not approved.

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

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The issue in the present case is whether the relevant nomination has been approved.

   Nomination of a position

9. 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. In addition, this criterion also requires that the nomination has been approved: cl.186.223(2).

10. The applicant applied for the visa on the basis of a nomination made by Louth Civil Pty Ltd (the nominator). The employer nomination in which the applicant was identified as the relevant 457 visa holder and against which he made the relevant declaration at the time of the visa application, was refused by the Department.

11. The nominator applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision not to approve the relevant nomination. On 17 May 2019, the Tribunal set aside the Department's decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.

12. As the relevant nomination in respect of the applicant has now been approved, the applicant accordingly meets the requirement in cl.186.223(2).

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

    DECISION

14. 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.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    R. Skaros
    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.