Security International Services (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 1093
•19 March 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Security International Services (Migration) [2018] AATA 1093
[2018] AATA 1093
19 March 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a dispute between Security International Services (Migration) (the Company) and the Department of Immigration. The Company sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse its nomination application for the position of Program or Project Administrator and to bar the Company for five years from making future applications as a standard business sponsor. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Company met the requirements for approval of its nomination under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, specifically as set out in regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. A key sub-issue was whether the requirement under regulation 5.19(3)(g) was satisfied, which mandates that there be no "adverse information" known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator, or that it be reasonable to disregard such information.
The Tribunal reasoned that the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination was based on adverse information known to the Department about the Company. Regulation 5.19(3)(g)(i) requires that no such adverse information be known. The Tribunal found that it was not satisfied that no adverse information was known about the Company within the preceding three years, thus failing to meet this criterion. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered regulation 5.19(3)(g)(ii), which allows for adverse information to be disregarded if reasonable. Despite being afforded opportunities to present evidence and arguments, and having received a second s.359A Letter from the Tribunal, the Company failed to respond. In these circumstances, the Tribunal concluded it was not reasonable to disregard the adverse information. As all requirements of regulation 5.19(3) must be met for approval, and this criterion was not satisfied, the nomination could not be approved.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Company met the requirements for approval of its nomination under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, specifically as set out in regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. A key sub-issue was whether the requirement under regulation 5.19(3)(g) was satisfied, which mandates that there be no "adverse information" known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator, or that it be reasonable to disregard such information.
The Tribunal reasoned that the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination was based on adverse information known to the Department about the Company. Regulation 5.19(3)(g)(i) requires that no such adverse information be known. The Tribunal found that it was not satisfied that no adverse information was known about the Company within the preceding three years, thus failing to meet this criterion. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered regulation 5.19(3)(g)(ii), which allows for adverse information to be disregarded if reasonable. Despite being afforded opportunities to present evidence and arguments, and having received a second s.359A Letter from the Tribunal, the Company failed to respond. In these circumstances, the Tribunal concluded it was not reasonable to disregard the adverse information. As all requirements of regulation 5.19(3) must be met for approval, and this criterion was not satisfied, the nomination could not be approved.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0