Sanjeev Kumar (Migration)

[2020] AATA 1706

Sanjeev Kumar (Migration) [2020] AATA 1706 (20 May 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Sanjeev Kumar
Mrs Neelam Rani
Ms Anika Choudhary

CASE NUMBER:  1929217

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/3673860

MEMBER:Peter Emmerton

DATE:20 May 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.

Statement made on 20 May 2020 at 10:34am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) –­ Direct Entry stream – Customer Service Manager – subject of ­an approved nomination – no response to s 359A letter – not entitled to appear before the Tribunal – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359C, 360, 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 187.233

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

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 Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 27 September 2018. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).

3. The criteria for a Subclass 187 visa are set out in Part 187 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 two alternative visa streams; the Temporary Residence Transition stream, or the Direct Entry stream.

4. In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Customer Service Manager, ANZSCO 149212.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination was not approved.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

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

8. In determining the applicant’s claims the Tribunal must first make findings of fact on material matters in dispute.  This may involve an assessment of credibility and in so doing, the Tribunal is aware of the need and importance of being sensitive to the circumstances and the difficulties applicants often face before the Tribunal in their particular circumstances.

9. The applicants rely on the evidence given before the Tribunal together with written submissions and supporting evidence provided to the Tribunal and previously to the department.

10. On 27 September 2018, the applicant’s sponsoring employer, OM Cleaning Services Pty Ltd applied for approval for a nomination for the position of Customer Service Manager, ANZSCO 149212. Mr Sanjeev Kumar is the nominee for the position. On 27 August 2019 the Department refused the application. In a separate decision, the Department refused Mr Sanjeev Kumar’s subclass 187 visa application because OM Cleaning Service Pty Ltd’s nomination was not approved.

11. OM Cleaning Service Pty Ltd and Mr Sanjeev Kumar applied to the Tribunal to review the Department’s decisions.

12. On 21 October 2019, the Tribunal accepted OM Cleaning Service Pty Ltd’s Request for Withdrawal from the review. Accordingly, it follows that there is no longer a valid application for review and the decision by the department to refuse the employer nomination stands. Therefore, there can be no valid employer nomination.

13. On 16 October 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the visa applicant requesting information regarding the status of the nomination. A written reply was requested by 30 October 2019. No response was received by the requested date nor at the time of writing this decision.

14. On 20 April 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359A of the Act and advised the following.

    ‘Dear Mr Sanjeev Kumar, Mrs Neelam Rani and Ms Choudhary

    INVITATION TO COMMENT ON OR RESPOND TO INFORMATION – MR SANJEEV
    KUMAR, MRS NEELAM RANI AND MS ANIKA CHOUDHARY

    I am writing in relation to the applications for review made by you in respect of
    decisions to refuse to grant Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visas.

    In conducting the review, we are required by the Migration Act 1958 to invite you to
    comment on or respond to certain information which we consider would, subject to
    your comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the
    decisions under review
    .
    Please note, however, that we have not made up our mind about the information.

    The particulars of the information are:

    • The application for approval of the nominated position made by OM Cleaning Services SA Pty Ltd (the nominator) was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration. The nominator sought a review of that decision but they have now withdrawn that application for review. This means that the nominator’s application for the nominated position has not been approved.

    This information is relevant to the review because it is a requirement for the grant of the visa that the position specified in your visa application is the subject of an approved nomination.

    If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may find that the position specified in your visa application is not the subject of an approved nomination. This would mean that you do not satisfy a requirement for the grant of the visa and that we must affirm the decision that is under review.

    You are invited to give comments on or respond to the above information in writing.

    The information should be received by 4 May 2020. If the information is in a language other than English, it must be accompanied by an English translation from an accredited translator.

    If you cannot provide the information by 4 May 2020, you may ask us for an extension of time in which to provide the information. If you make such a request, it must be received by us before 4 May 2020 and you must state the reason why the extension of time is required.

    We will carefully consider any request for an extension of time and will advise whether or not the extension has been granted.

    If we do not receive the information within the period allowed or as extended, we may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain the information. You will also lose any entitlement you might otherwise have had under the Migration Act 1958 to appear before us to give evidence and present arguments.’

15. At time of making this decision the applicant has not responded to the letter.

16. The review applicant did not provide the information within the prescribed period and no extension of time was requested. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40. The Tribunal has decided to proceed to a decision without taking further steps to obtain the information.

    Nomination of a position

17. For applicants in the Direct Entry stream, cl.187.233 requires that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nominated position under r.5.19(4)(h)(ii) of the Regulations (that is, a Direct Entry nomination in regional Australia), or under r.5.19(4) as it was prior to 1 July 2012 (that is, a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme nomination). 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, where the associated nomination is made on or after 1 July 2017, the position must be the position in relation to which the applicant is identified in that nomination under r.5.19(4)(a)(ii).

18. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made nomination

    ·the nomination has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn

    ·there is no ‘adverse information’ known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person ‘associated with’ that person (within the meaning of r.1.13A and r.1.13B); or it is reasonable to disregard any such information

    ·the position is still available to the applicant, and

    ·the visa application was made no more than six months after the nomination of the position was approved.

19. The Tribunal finds that the applicant cannot satisfy an essential criterion because the nominated position is not approved. The Tribunal finds the applicant is unable to satisfy 187.233(3).

20. Therefore, cl.187.233 is not met.

21. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. No claims have been made in respect of the other visa streams. As the requirements that must be met by a person seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

22. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant’s Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.

    Peter Emmerton
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    187.233(1)     The position to which the application relates is the position:

    (a)nominated in an application for approval that:

    (i)identifies the applicant in relation to the position; and

    (ii)is made in relation to a visa in a Direct Entry stream; and

    (iii)seeks to meet the requirements of subregulation 5.19(12); and

    (b)in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114C(3)(d) of Schedule 1 was made in the application for the grant of the visa.

    (2)     The person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the nomination.

    (3)     The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (4)     The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (4A)    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.

    (5)     The position is still available to the applicant.

    (6)     The application for the visa is made no more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.