RUPINDER SINGH (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 5684
•20 December 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
RUPINDER SINGH (Migration) [2018] AATA 5684
[2018] AATA 5684
20 December 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, by Rupinder Singh. The applicant sought to be employed as a Customer Service Manager by K & P Sidhu Investments Pty Ltd, located in Coffs Harbour. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the nomination of the position. The decision was made by Mr S Norman of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.233, which mandates that the position be the subject of an approved nomination in regional Australia, that the nominator be the prospective employer, that the nomination be approved and not withdrawn, that there be no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remain available, and that the visa application be lodged within six months of the nomination's approval. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the criteria for other streams within subclass 187, and for family members, although the applicant had only pursued the Direct Entry stream.
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not met the requirements of clause 187.233. The nomination application lodged by K & P Sidhu Investments Pty Ltd on 8 December 2015 was refused by a delegate on 30 January 2017, specifically because the applicant did not meet subclause 187.233(3), which requires the Minister to have approved the nomination. As this primary criterion was not met, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for the subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. The Tribunal also noted that as the primary criteria were not met, the criteria for other streams and for family members were also not satisfied.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.233, which mandates that the position be the subject of an approved nomination in regional Australia, that the nominator be the prospective employer, that the nomination be approved and not withdrawn, that there be no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remain available, and that the visa application be lodged within six months of the nomination's approval. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the criteria for other streams within subclass 187, and for family members, although the applicant had only pursued the Direct Entry stream.
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not met the requirements of clause 187.233. The nomination application lodged by K & P Sidhu Investments Pty Ltd on 8 December 2015 was refused by a delegate on 30 January 2017, specifically because the applicant did not meet subclause 187.233(3), which requires the Minister to have approved the nomination. As this primary criterion was not met, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for the subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. The Tribunal also noted that as the primary criteria were not met, the criteria for other streams and for family members were also not satisfied.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0