Sharma (Migration)

[2020] AATA 1698

Sharma (Migration) [2020] AATA 1698 (2 March 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Anshul Sharma

CASE NUMBER:  1905503

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/943615

MEMBER:Cathrine Burnett-Wake

DATE:2 March 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.

Statement made on 02 March 2020 at 12:57pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) – Subclass 187 – Direct Entry stream – Office Manager–no approved nomination– not the subject of an approved nomination –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 5, 65, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.13, Schedule 2, cl 187.233

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 applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 27 February 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 applicant is seeking the visa in Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Office Manager.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the associated nomination by Hawkesbury Valley Meat Processor Pty Ltd Pty Ltd was not approved.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal via telephone on 2 March 2020 to give evidence and present arguments.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The issue in the present case is whether there is an approved nomination.

   Nomination of a position

9. Clause 187.233 as applicable in this case is set out in full in an attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration made as part of the current visa application. In addition, where the associated nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, it must identify the applicant in relation to the position.

10. 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.

11. At hearing the applicant conceded that the application had been refused by the Department and there was no current nomination.

12. The Tribunal, pursuant to s.359AA, of the Act provided particulars of information that it considered at the time would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the delegate's decision, and it invited the applicant to comment on or respond to the information.

13. The particulars of the information were that the Tribunal had accessed the Department’s online systems to establish if he was subject to an approved nomination given the nomination had been refused. Further, that the Department’s systems indicated there was no approved nomination in place for him.

14. It was explained to the applicant that this information is relevant to the review because it is a requirement for the grant of the visa that the position specified in the visa application is the subject of an approved nomination. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he required additional time to comment on the information. The applicant stated he did not require additional time and wished to proceed with the hearing.

15. The applicant conceded that there was no nomination. He however explained that he believed he was the victim of migration fraud perpetrated by his former migration agent. The applicant explained that his migration agent had handled everything, but he now believes the nomination was fake and that the money he had paid to the migration agent was lost. The applicant stated he had lodged a complaint with Fair Trade NSW in respect to the money he paid the migration agent, however, it had not yet been finalised. The applicant stated that he was working full time for Coles and had lodged the review application to gain more time to await the outcome of Fair Trade NSW.

16. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it had no discretion to consider the circumstances that led to the nomination being refused, and that it was solely determining whether there was an approved nomination and that the information before the Tribunal was there was no approved nomination.

17. The facts are not under dispute, and both parties agree that there is no approved nomination.

18. Therefore, cl.187.233 is not met.

19. 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

20. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.

    Cathrine Burnett-Wake
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    187.233(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:

    (i)subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii); or

    (ii)subregulation 5.19(4) as in force before 1 July 2012; and

    (aa)in relation to which the applicant is identified in the application under subparagraph 5.19(4)(a)(ii); 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.