Singh (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 3925
•4 August 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Singh (Migration) [2021] AATA 3925
[2021] AATA 3925
4 August 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The applicant, Mr. Singh, was the subject of an approved nomination by Tummy Full Pty Ltd. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 was satisfied.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination for the position met the requirements of clause 187.233. This clause mandates that the nominated position must be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination, and, where the nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, identify the applicant in relation to the position. Further requirements include that the employer must be the nominator, the nomination must not have been withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons (or such information must be reasonable to disregard), the position must remain available to the applicant, and the visa application must have been made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the person who would employ the applicant was indeed the nominator, Tummy Full Pty Ltd. It was satisfied that the nomination had been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, and that no relevant adverse information was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted evidence that the applicant intended to continue employing the nominee and that the position remained available. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the visa application was made before the nomination was approved, thus satisfying the requirement that it was not made more than six months after approval.
Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that clause 187.233 was met. The Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant met this specific criterion.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination for the position met the requirements of clause 187.233. This clause mandates that the nominated position must be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination, and, where the nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, identify the applicant in relation to the position. Further requirements include that the employer must be the nominator, the nomination must not have been withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons (or such information must be reasonable to disregard), the position must remain available to the applicant, and the visa application must have been made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the person who would employ the applicant was indeed the nominator, Tummy Full Pty Ltd. It was satisfied that the nomination had been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, and that no relevant adverse information was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted evidence that the applicant intended to continue employing the nominee and that the position remained available. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the visa application was made before the nomination was approved, thus satisfying the requirement that it was not made more than six months after approval.
Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that clause 187.233 was met. The Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant met this specific criterion.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Singh (Migration) [2021] AATA 3925
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0