Saini (Migration)
Case
•
[2022] AATA 3462
•6 October 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Saini (Migration) [2022] AATA 3462
[2022] AATA 3462
6 October 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), direct entry stream, by an applicant whose nominated position as a retail manager was the subject of a nomination application. The dispute arose because the nomination application was refused by a delegate for the Minister, and the subsequent application for review of that refusal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to the deregistration of the nominating company, Mossobi Media Pty Ltd. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the position to which the applicant's visa application related was the subject of an approved nomination, as required by clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause, as applicable, stipulated several conditions, including that the nomination must have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, and that the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the nomination.
The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination application had been refused by the Minister's delegate and that the subsequent attempt to seek review of this refusal was unsuccessful because the nominating company had been deregistered, meaning the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. Consequently, the nomination remained refused. As an approved nomination was a mandatory criterion for the visa, and this criterion was not met, the Tribunal found that clause 187.233 was not satisfied. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the position to which the applicant's visa application related was the subject of an approved nomination, as required by clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause, as applicable, stipulated several conditions, including that the nomination must have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, and that the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the nomination.
The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination application had been refused by the Minister's delegate and that the subsequent attempt to seek review of this refusal was unsuccessful because the nominating company had been deregistered, meaning the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. Consequently, the nomination remained refused. As an approved nomination was a mandatory criterion for the visa, and this criterion was not met, the Tribunal found that clause 187.233 was not satisfied. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Saini (Migration) [2022] AATA 3462
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2002] FCA 617
Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2012] FMCA 28
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li
[2013] HCA 18