Sandhu (Migration)

Case

[2020] AATA 5288

19 November 2020


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Sandhu (Migration) [2020] AATA 5288 [2020] AATA 5288 19 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr Sandhu, who sought a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, under the Direct Entry stream. The dispute centred on whether the position for which Mr Sandhu applied was the subject of an approved nomination, a key requirement for this visa subclass.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied the criteria under clause 187.233, specifically whether the position was the subject of an approved nomination. This involved assessing whether the nomination had been made by the prospective employer, approved by the Minister, not subsequently withdrawn, and if there was any adverse information concerning the nominator. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the position remained available to the applicant and if the visa application was lodged within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the fact that the nomination lodged by Kickoff Foods Pty Ltd ATF Brijmohan Unit Trust was refused on 14 June 2019. Although an application for review of this refusal was lodged, it was subsequently withdrawn by the nominator, leading the Tribunal to accept it no longer had jurisdiction to decide the matter on 26 March 2020. As there was no evidence presented to demonstrate that the position was the subject of an approved nomination, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not met the essential criteria for the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr Sandhu the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Judicial Review

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0