Singh (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 538
•2 March 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Singh (Migration) [2021] AATA 538
[2021] AATA 538
2 March 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr. Singh, who sought a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, subclass 187, under the Direct Entry stream. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria for an approved and un-withdrawn position nomination, as required for this visa subclass. The applicant's initial nomination by Arun & Brothers Pty Ltd was refused by the Department, and although the company sought review, it subsequently withdrew its application, leaving no approved nomination on record.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations, specifically concerning the nomination of a position. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination that has not been withdrawn, and that the applicant must be identified in relation to that position if the nomination was made after 1 July 2017. The Tribunal also had to consider whether a subsequent nomination, even for the same position by the same employer, could satisfy these criteria, or if a nomination by a different employer could be relied upon.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to meet the essential criterion that the position be the subject of an approved and un-withdrawn nomination. It noted that the original nomination by Arun & Brothers Pty Ltd had been refused and the subsequent review application was withdrawn, meaning there was no evidence of an approved nomination. The Tribunal applied the principle that a visa application under the Direct Entry stream must relate to the specific position for which the declaration was made, and that a later nomination, even by the same employer for the same position, or any nomination by a different employer, could not satisfy this requirement.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr. Singh the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, as the requirements for the Direct Entry stream had not been met.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations, specifically concerning the nomination of a position. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination that has not been withdrawn, and that the applicant must be identified in relation to that position if the nomination was made after 1 July 2017. The Tribunal also had to consider whether a subsequent nomination, even for the same position by the same employer, could satisfy these criteria, or if a nomination by a different employer could be relied upon.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to meet the essential criterion that the position be the subject of an approved and un-withdrawn nomination. It noted that the original nomination by Arun & Brothers Pty Ltd had been refused and the subsequent review application was withdrawn, meaning there was no evidence of an approved nomination. The Tribunal applied the principle that a visa application under the Direct Entry stream must relate to the specific position for which the declaration was made, and that a later nomination, even by the same employer for the same position, or any nomination by a different employer, could not satisfy this requirement.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr. Singh the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, as the requirements for the Direct Entry stream had not been met.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Singh (Migration) [2021] AATA 538
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Hasan v MIBP
[2016] FCCA 1049
Kaur v MIBP
[2017] FCCA 564
Singh v MIBP
[2016] FCCA 2229