Sharma (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 3389
•4 July 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sharma (Migration) [2019] AATA 3389
[2019] AATA 3389
4 July 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for review by Mrs Kiran Sharma and other secondary visa applicants, relating to the refusal of their Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas under the Subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme, Direct Entry stream. The decision under review was made by the Tribunal, presided over by De-Anne Kelly.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicants met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the nomination of a position. This clause requires, among other things, that the nomination has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn, and that the position remains available to the applicant.
The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination lodged by HRV Pty Ltd had been withdrawn at the nominator's request. Consequently, there was no approved nomination that satisfied clause 187.233(3). The Tribunal had notified the applicants of this issue and invited them to comment, providing a deadline for response and the possibility of an extension. As no response was received within the prescribed period, and no extension was granted, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision without further input from the applicants, applying section 359C and section 360(3) of the Migration Act 1958.
The Tribunal concluded that clause 187.311 was not met due to the withdrawn nomination. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicants met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the nomination of a position. This clause requires, among other things, that the nomination has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn, and that the position remains available to the applicant.
The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination lodged by HRV Pty Ltd had been withdrawn at the nominator's request. Consequently, there was no approved nomination that satisfied clause 187.233(3). The Tribunal had notified the applicants of this issue and invited them to comment, providing a deadline for response and the possibility of an extension. As no response was received within the prescribed period, and no extension was granted, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision without further input from the applicants, applying section 359C and section 360(3) of the Migration Act 1958.
The Tribunal concluded that clause 187.311 was not met due to the withdrawn nomination. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants the 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
-
Natural Justice
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Sharma (Migration) [2019] AATA 3389
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0