Safiq (Migration)

[2020] AATA 44

Safiq (Migration) [2020] AATA 44 (8 January 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Imroz Imran Safiq
Mrs Mahzabeen Hasseen Khan
Master Mohammed Raiyaan Zakee Safiq
Miss Rumaisa Rayna Naz

CASE NUMBER:  1718346

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/3427230

MEMBER:Andrew McLean Williams

DATE:8 January 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 visa:

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

Statement made on 08 January 2020 at 4:21pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 – employer’s position nomination refused – refusal set aside on review – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), cls 186.223(1), 186.311

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 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicants applied for the visas on 15 October 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 28 July 2017.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that on 7 June 2017 a delegate of the Minister had refused to approve the nomination of an employment position for Mr Imroz Safiq (the first-named applicant) as had been lodged by Driveline Services Australia Pty Ltd.  This is the position to which clause 186.223(1) relates..

3. On 8 January 2020 the Tribunal approved the nomination lodged by Driveline Services Pty Ltd after hearing an application to review the decision made on 7 June 2017 that had been lodged  by Driveline Services Pty Ltd. In light of that, the Tribunal is satisfied that the criterion in clause 186.223 is met by the first-named applicant and the other named applicants – as family members of Mr Safiq – are able to meet the requirements of clause 186.311.  In these circumstances the Tribunal has determined that this matter should now be remitted to the Department for reconsideration by a delegate of the Minister.

   DECISION

4. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 visa:

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

   Andrew McLean Williams
   Member