SHERGILL (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3558

SHERGILL (Migration) [2018] AATA 3558 (9 August 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Ms RUPINDER KAUR SHERGILL
Mr HARWINDER SINGH SHERGILL
Miss EKMJOT KAUR SHERGILL

CASE NUMBER:  1716657

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2016/2002000

MEMBER:C Burnett-Wake

DATE:9 August 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

·cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 09 August 2018 at 8:17am

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Requirement to be subject of an approved nomination – Nomination previously refused by delegate – Nomination subsequently approved by Tribunal – Decision remitted with direction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360(2)(a)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19(3), Schedule 2, cl 186.223(2)

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 Immigration and Border Protection on 13 July 2017 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 9 June 2016. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).

3. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 186 visa are set out in Part 186 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 three alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the Direct Entry stream, or the Labour Agreement stream.

4. In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Cook.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because there was no approved nomination.

6. The Tribunal did not consider it necessary to conduct a hearing as it was able to find in favour of the visa applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s.360(2)(a) of the Act.

7. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

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

   Nomination of a position

10. Clause 186.223 as applicable in this case is set out in full in the attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that the position to which the application relates is the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Temporary Residence Transition stream that identifies the visa applicant. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration that was required to be made as part of the current visa application.

11. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·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.

12. The applicant's nominating employer, 13^th Century Bros Unit Trust, applied to the Department for the approval of the position of Cook in respect of the applicant. The Department refused to approve the nomination and the employer applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

13. On 8 August 2018, the Tribunal set aside the Department's decision and substituted a decision to approve the nomination in respect of the applicant, who was a 457 visa holder at the time of the nomination, under r.5.19(3).

14. As the relevant nomination in respect of the applicant has been approved, the applicant accordingly meets the requirement in cl.186.223(2).

15. Therefore, cl.186.223 is met.

16. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

17. The application of the second and third named visa applicants is based on being a member of the family unit of the first named visa applicant who meets the primary criteria. As the Tribunal is remitting the application of the first named visa applicant with a finding that she meets the requirements of cl.186.223, the remaining criteria for her application should now be reconsidered, in addition the applications of the second and third named visa applicants, as members of the family unit of the first named visa applicant, should now also be reconsidered in full.

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal remits the application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

    ·cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Cathrine Burnett-Wake
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    186.223(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 subregulation 5.19(3); and

    (b)in relation to which the applicant is identified as the holder of a Subclass 457 … visa; and

    (c)in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114B(3)(d) of Schedule 1 was made in the application for the grant of the visa.

    (2)      The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (3)      The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (3A)    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.

    (4)      The position is still available to the applicant.

    (5)      The application for the visa is made no more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.