Singh (Migration)
[2022] AATA 2207
•30 June 2022
Singh (Migration) [2022] AATA 2207 (30 June 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Mr Harvinder Singh
REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Clive Greaves (MARN: 0534090)
CASE NUMBER: 1912626
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2017/3123691
MEMBER:P. Maishman
DATE:30 June 2022
PLACE OF DECISION: Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:
·cl 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Statement made on 30 June 2022 at 5:06pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Restaurant manager – subject of an approved nomination – decision under review remittedLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 187.233STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
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 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 29 August 2017. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).
The criteria for a Subclass 187 visa are set out in Part 187 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.
In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of restaurant manager.
The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because employer nomination was not approved.
In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, 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.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.187.233.
Nomination of a position
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.
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 reg 1.13A and reg 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.
The applicant was nominated by Maan Group of Trading Pty Ltd for the position of Restaurant Manager. The position is the same as in the reg 5.19 nomination application and the employer is the nominator.
The nomination was initially refused by the Department. However, on 30 June 2022, this Tribunal made the decision to set aside the refusal and substituted a decision to approve the nomination (Case Number 1908697).
The Tribunal is satisfied there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person ‘associated with’ that person.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the nomination has not been withdrawn and that the position is still available to the applicant. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the visa application was not made more than six months after the nomination of the position was approved.
Given the above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant meets all the requirements of cl 187.233.
Therefore, cl 187.233 is met.
Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:
·cl 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
P. Maishman
MemberATTACHMENT 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.
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Appeal
-
Statutory Construction
0
0
2