Singh (Migration)

[2022] AATA 858

Singh (Migration) [2022] AATA 858 (11 April 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Pardeep Singh

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Michael Ephraim Arch

CASE NUMBER:  1922266

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/4637904

MEMBER:Terrence Baxter

DATE:11 April 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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 criterion for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:

·cl 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 11 April 2022 at 10:47am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) – Subclass 187 – Direct Entry stream – Retail Manager – tribunal set aside nomination application –approved nomination – position is still available to the applicant –subject of an approved nomination – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 1.13, 5.19, 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 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 6 December 2017. 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 (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.

4. In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Retail Manager for Dinesh Corporation Pty Ltd (the nominator).

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 3 August 2019 because the applicant did not meet cl 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations which required that he be the subject of an approved nomination. The delegate found that the nomination of the nominator was refused on 12 June 2019 and that accordingly the applicant did not meet the requirements of cl 187.233(3) and did not meet the requirements of cl 187.233 as a whole.

6. The applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal on 12 August 2019.

7. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal by video conference on 9 March 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was a joint hearing with the application for review of a decision to refuse the relevant nomination application, in addition to applications for review of two other nomination refusals involving the nominator and the applications for review by the nominees in those matters.

8. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by video conference. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by video conference, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by video conference.

9. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by Michael Arch of Concordia Pacific. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing by video conference.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

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

    Nomination of a position

12. Clause 187.233 as applicable in this case is set out in full in an attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires 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.

13. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the 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 of the Regulations); 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.

14. Records of the Department of Home Affairs (formerly the Department of Immigration and Border Protection) (the Department) indicate that the nominator made an application to the Department to have the position of Retail Manager approved, with the applicant as nominee, on 24 November 2017. The nomination application was refused on 12 June 2019 and the nominator sought review of that decision with the Tribunal on 14 June 2019.

15. On 11 April 2022, the Tribunal (as presently constituted) set aside the Department’s decision to refuse to approve the nomination and substituted a decision to approve the nomination by the nominator.

16. Therefore, cl 187.233(3) is met.

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

    DECISION

18. 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 criterion for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:

    ·cl 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Terrence Baxter
    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.