Sapkota (Migration)

[2022] AATA 3310

Sapkota (Migration) [2022] AATA 3310 (12 August 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Utsav Sapkota
Mrs Anita Poudel Sapkota

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Sobaran Singh (MARN: 9791702)

CASE NUMBER:  1935766

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/4889526

MEMBER:Susan Reece Jones

DATE:12 August 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

·cl 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 12 August 2022 at 4:56pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – position of Cook – nomination approved upon review – adverse information about the nominator – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 186.223; rr 1.13, 5.19

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 on 28 November 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 20 December 2017. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).

3. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 186 visa are set out in Part 186 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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 three alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the Direct Entry stream, or the Labour Agreement stream.

4. In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Cook (ANZSCO 351411) for nominator, Sanu Family Pty Ltd.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination did not satisfy reg 5.19(4)(f) and 5.19 (4)(g) of the Regulations because adverse information has been identified in relation to the nominator and the delegate did not consider it reasonable to disregard that information.

6. The applicants were represented in relation to the review.

7. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.186.223.

   Nomination of a position

9. Clause 186.223 as applicable in this case is set out in full in the attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that the position to which the application relates is the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Temporary Residence Transition stream that identifies the visa applicant. 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.

10. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·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 reg 1.13A and reg 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.

11. The applicant applied for a visa on the basis of a nomination made by Sanu Family Pty Ltd. The employer nomination in which the applicant is identified as the relevant 457 visa holder and against which he made the relevant declaration at the time of the visa application, was refused by the Department on 24 October 2019

12. The nominator operates a restaurant in Inglewood, Perth, Western Australia, known as the Himalayan Nepalese Restaurant.

13. The nominator applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision not to approve the relevant nomination.

14. On 12 August 2022, the Tribunal set aside the Department’s decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.

15. As the relevant nomination in respect of the applicant has now been approved, the applicant meets the requirements in cl.186.223(2).

16. Therefore, given the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

17. As the Tribunal is remitting the applicant of the first name visa applicant with a finding that he meets the requirements of clause.186.223(2), the remaining criteria for the applicant should now be reconsidered. In addition, the application of the second named visa applicant should also now be reconsidered in full.

18. Therefore, cl 186.223 is met.

    DECISION

19. The Tribunal remits the applications Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

    ·cl 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

    Susan Reece Jones
    Member

    
    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    186.223(1)     The position to which the application relates is the position:

    (a)nominated in an application for approval that seeks to meet the requirements of subregulation 5.19(3); and

    (b)in relation to which the applicant is identified as the holder of a Subclass 457 … visa; and

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

    (2)     The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (3)     The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (3A)    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.

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

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