Singh (Migration) - [2020] AATA 3487

Singh (Migration) [2020] AATA 3487 (9 July 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Mr Gurinder Singh
Mrs Kulvinder Kaur
Miss Jasmanjot Kaur
Miss Dilmanjot Kaur
CASE NUMBER:  1837000
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/2299367
MEMBER:Alison Mercer
DATE:9 July 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.

Statement made on 09 July 2020 at 11:49am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) Visa – Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme – Temporary Residence Transition stream – position of Motor Mechanic – no approved nomination – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 363
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 186.223, 186.233, 186.231; r 1.13
CASES
Hasan v MIBP [2016] FCCA 1049
Hasran v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 183 FCR 413
Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCCA 564
Khanom v MIBP [2016] FCCA 3259
Singh v MIBP [2016] FCCA 2229
Singh v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 105
Yang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FMCA 890
STATEMENT 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 on 26 November 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants applied for the visas on 28 May 2018. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).
The criteria for the grant of a subclass 186 visa are set out in Part 186 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 three alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition (TRT) stream, the Direct Entry (DE) stream, or the Labour Agreement (LA) stream.
In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Motor Mechanic.
The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which requires that the applicant is the subject of an approved nomination by his nominating employer. The delegate found that the applicant’s employer, Steve Whittaker, had his nomination of the applicant refused on 27 September 2018. The applicant therefore did not meet the criteria for a subclass 186 visa in the TRT stream, and had not made any claims to meet the criteria for the DE or LA streams. The delegate also refused subclass 186 visas to the second, third and fourth named applicants (the applicant’s wife and children) on the basis that they did not meet the secondary visa criteria…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Singh (Migration)

Details

AGLC: Singh (Migration) [2020] AATA 3487
Case: [2020] AATA 3487
Decision Date: 9 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the affirmation of a decision not to grant them an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme, Temporary Residence Transition stream. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria for an approved nomination for the position of Motor Mechanic.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations, which stipulates that the position to which the visa application relates must be the subject of an approved nomination that identifies the visa applicant. This criterion further requires that the nomination has been approved, not withdrawn, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval, among other conditions. The Tribunal also considered whether a subsequent nomination, even for the same position by the same employer, could satisfy the requirements, given that the initial nomination had been refused.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant could not meet the requirements of clause 186.223 because the employer's nomination for the applicant's position was refused by the Department and no review application was lodged. Citing established authority, including *Hasan v MIBP* and *Singh v MIBP*, the Tribunal held that a subsequent nomination, even for the same position by the same employer, could not be relied upon to satisfy the criteria. This was because the visa application declaration was made in relation to a specific, initial nomination, and the "position" referred to is a particular one that exists at the time the nomination is submitted for approval. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision not to grant visas to the other named applicants, finding they did not meet the secondary criteria as family members of a Subclass 186 visa holder and had not demonstrated they met the primary criteria in their own right.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCENomination of a position Clause 186.223 as applicable in this case is set out in full in the attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that the position to which the application relates is the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Temporary Residence Transition stream that identifies the visa applicant. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration that was required to be made as part of the current visa application. In addition, this criterion also requires that:·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. It is not disputed that in this case, Steve Whittaker lodged a nomination of the applicant, but it was refused by the Department on 27 September 2018. No review application was lodged by that employer with the Tribunal, as identified in the Tribunal’s s.359A letter. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant is not the subject of an approved nomination by Steve Whittaker. It is a requirement for the Direct Entry stream (cl.186.223) that the position to which the visa application relates is the position in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114B(3)(d) of Schedule 1 was made. It is clear that this requirement could not be satisfied by a later nomination made by a different employer,[1] and on current authority, even a nomination in respect of the same position made by the same employer could also not be relied on to meet these Schedule 2 criteria.[2] [1] Hasan v MIBP [2016] FCCA 1049 (Judge Smith, 13 May 2016). This judgment considered cl.187.223(1)(c) but the interpretation would appear equally applicable to almost identically worded cl.186.223(1)(c) and cl.186.233(1)(c).[2] That is also the interpretation reflected in Departmental Department policy - Permanent Employer Sponsored Entry- ENS and RSMS Visa applications – Subclasses 186/187 – [3.4.2] – position must be that for which the visa application was made (issued on 18 August 2018) This was the view taken in Singh v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 105[3] (which concerned an almost identically worded criterion for a subclass 187 visa). The Court considered whether it would be futile to grant relief to the applicant if an argued s.359A error were made out, where the visa application was refused on the basis that the associated nomination had been refused. The Court reasoned that the words in cl.187.233 refer to a factual event, that is, whether an employer nomination had been made, and about which the visa applicant made the required declaration in the visa application, meaning even if the applicant were able to obtain a further nomination for the same position from their employer this new nomination would not be the one in relation to which the declaration was made. Further, the ‘position’ referred to is a particular position that exists at the time at which the employer nomination is submitted for approval.[4] [3] Singh v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 105 (Judge Mortimer, 14 July 2017), at [88]. [4] See also Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCCA 564 (Judge Lucev, 29 March 2017) which also considered whether the applicant could meet 186.223 in circumstances where the associated nomination had been refused. Similarly, the Court reasoned that even if the applicant were able to obtain a further nomination for the same position from their employer this new nomination would not be the one to which the Schedule 1 declaration was made. Singh v MIBP [2016] FCCA 2229 (Judge Riley, 12 August 2016), also concerned the equivalent requirements for a Subclass 187 visa. In that matter the Court followed the interpretation of cl.187.233(1)(b) adopted in Hasan (at [33]-[34]), yet appeared to go somewhat further by commenting that ‘any nomination for a position that the applicant could now obtain would not satisfy cl.187.233’ (at [35]). Note, in contrast, that in Khanom v MIBP [2016] FCCA 3259 (Judge Smith, 16 December 2016), the Court appeared to implicitly accept that a second nomination by the same employer in respect of the same position could satisfy cl.187.233, when considering whether the Tribunal had acted reasonably in refusing to await the outcome of that second nomination application.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The Tribunal must also affirm the decision not to grant the second, third and fourth named applicants subclass 186 visas, as it finds that they do not meet the secondary visa criteria in cl.186.311 to be members of the family unit of a person who holds a subclass 186 visa, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that they meet the primary visa criteria in theri own right.DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.Alison MercerMemberATTACHMENT A186.223(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 subregulation 5.19(3); and(b)in relation to which the applicant is identified as the holder of a Subclass 457 … visa; and(c)in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114B(3)(d) of Schedule 1 was made in the application for the grant of the visa.(2) The Minister has approved the nomination.(3) The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.(3A) 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.(4) The position is still available to the applicant.(5) The application for the visa is made no more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.