Shadalooei (Migration)
Case
•
[2022] AATA 3459
•7 October 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Shadalooei (Migration) [2022] AATA 3459
[2022] AATA 3459
7 October 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, subclass 187, in the direct entry stream, brought by the applicant, Mr. Shadalooei. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria for this visa subclass, specifically concerning the nomination of his employment position.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination application, located in regional Australia, and identified in relation to the applicant. Crucially, for nominations made on or after 1 July 2017, the nomination must have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, and the position must still be available to the applicant.
The Tribunal noted that the nomination of the applicant's position by ST Secure Solutions Pty Ltd had been refused by the Department on 10 April 2019. Although ST Secure Solutions Pty Ltd had sought review of this refusal, their application was withdrawn, and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to review that decision. Consequently, there was no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination. The Tribunal further observed that legislative amendments and current authority indicated that the requirement for an approved nomination could not be satisfied by a new nomination, even for the same position by the same employer, if the original nomination was not approved.
As the applicant had failed to satisfy the essential criteria for the subclass 187 visa in the direct entry stream, specifically the requirement for an approved and un-withdrawn nomination, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination application, located in regional Australia, and identified in relation to the applicant. Crucially, for nominations made on or after 1 July 2017, the nomination must have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, and the position must still be available to the applicant.
The Tribunal noted that the nomination of the applicant's position by ST Secure Solutions Pty Ltd had been refused by the Department on 10 April 2019. Although ST Secure Solutions Pty Ltd had sought review of this refusal, their application was withdrawn, and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to review that decision. Consequently, there was no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination. The Tribunal further observed that legislative amendments and current authority indicated that the requirement for an approved nomination could not be satisfied by a new nomination, even for the same position by the same employer, if the original nomination was not approved.
As the applicant had failed to satisfy the essential criteria for the subclass 187 visa in the direct entry stream, specifically the requirement for an approved and un-withdrawn nomination, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Shadalooei (Migration) [2022] AATA 3459
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
BVW17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
[2017] FCA 1508
BVW17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
[2017] FCA 1508
Hasan v MIBP
[2016] FCCA 1049