SEE (Migration)
Case
•
[2022] AATA 2333
•19 May 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
SEE (Migration) [2022] AATA 2333
[2022] AATA 2333
19 May 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Department of Home Affairs to refuse a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, subclass 187, Direct Entry stream. The applicant, Ms Ka Yee See, sought to have the decision affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's nominated position as a Secretary had been approved in accordance with the relevant migration regulations.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination application in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia, and must identify the applicant in relation to the position if the nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017. Further criteria include that the nominator must be the prospective employer, the nomination must have been approved and not withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, the position must remain available, and the visa application must be made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination application lodged by Kooralbyn Resort Pty Ltd. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet clause 187.233, specifically noting that the nomination had been refused by the Department of Home Affairs and this refusal was affirmed by the AAT based on questions of the resort's financial viability. The applicant's submission, received after the Tribunal had advised of its intended decision, did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome this fundamental issue. Consequently, as the primary applicant failed to meet the criteria, the secondary applicants also failed to meet their respective criteria under clause 187.311.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination application in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia, and must identify the applicant in relation to the position if the nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017. Further criteria include that the nominator must be the prospective employer, the nomination must have been approved and not withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, the position must remain available, and the visa application must be made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination application lodged by Kooralbyn Resort Pty Ltd. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet clause 187.233, specifically noting that the nomination had been refused by the Department of Home Affairs and this refusal was affirmed by the AAT based on questions of the resort's financial viability. The applicant's submission, received after the Tribunal had advised of its intended decision, did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome this fundamental issue. Consequently, as the primary applicant failed to meet the criteria, the secondary applicants also failed to meet their respective criteria under clause 187.311.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
-
Natural Justice
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
SEE (Migration) [2022] AATA 2333
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0