Singh (Migration)

[2020] AATA 3055

Singh (Migration) [2020] AATA 3055 (23 July 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Jagdeep Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1809444

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE:               BCC2017/2272740

MEMBER:Rosa Gagliardi

DATE:23 July 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Australian Capital Territory

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 23 July 2020 at 2:37pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – direct entry stream – related nomination application refused – refusal set aside on review – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 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 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 27 June 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 (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 (the nominee) is seeking the visa in Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Retail Manager (General), ANZSCO 142111.  The related nomination was made by AMG HOLDINGS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ATF GS TRUST (the nominator) on 27 June 2016.  The Department refused the nomination on 7 February 2018.

5. As a consequence, the delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.187.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Both the nominator and the applicant has sought review of the refusals and were represented by the same registered migration agent.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 21 July 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the nominator, Mr Gurpreet Singh. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Nomination of a position

8. 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.

9. 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 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.

10. On the visa application, the applicant provided details of a related nomination, which is the nomination made by the nominator for the position of Retail Manager (General).  The applicant has appropriately declared, as required, that the position to which the application relates is a position nominated under regulation 5.19 in accordance with a labour agreement by providing details in this application of a nomination that has been lodged with the Department of Home Affairs.

11. The nomination sought to meet the requirements of r.5.19(4)(h)(ii) being a position located in regional Australia (as defined).  On the information before the Tribunal, it finds that the nominator is the person who will employ the applicant.  The Tribunal approved the nomination on 23 July 2020 at 11.29am and it has not been withdrawn (see Decision: 1805295). 

12. The applicant is currently employed by the nominator and the Tribunal finds that the position is still available to the applicant.  The visa application was made prior to the nomination being approved.  Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the application was not made more than six months after the nomination of the position was approved.

13. Further, the Tribunal is not aware of any ‘adverse information’ (as defined) known to the Department of Home Affairs about the person who made the nomination or a person ‘associated with’ that person.  It does not have any information before it indicating that there have been any court/administrative/disciplinary actions or the like in relation to the nominator.  The Tribunal did have concerns that the nominator had not ensured that the Department of Home Affairs were aware that the previous nominee had left his employ, but the Tribunal is satisfied that the nominator is now aware of the importance of doing so.  Moreover, the nominee assured the Tribunal that he intended to continue to remain in the Australian Capital Territory for a further two years and possibly for the longer-term.

14. Therefore, cl.187.233 is met.

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

    DECISION

16. 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.

    Rosa Gagliardi
    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

    (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.