SINGH (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 6719
•9 December 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
SINGH (Migration) [2019] AATA 6719
[2019] AATA 6719
9 December 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme), Temporary Residence Transition stream. The applicant sought to have the decision to refuse the employer nomination set aside. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically clause 186.223(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which stipulates that the Minister must have approved the nomination.
The Tribunal considered the requirements of clause 186.223, which necessitates an approved nomination for the position, that the nomination has not been withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination approval. The Tribunal noted that the delegate of the Minister had refused the employer nomination, and this decision was affirmed by the Tribunal on 18 November 2019, on the basis that the nominator failed to satisfy subregulation 5.19(3) of the Regulations.
Following the affirmation of the employer nomination refusal, the Tribunal invited the visa applicants to comment on the implications of this decision, specifically noting that without an approved nomination, they would not satisfy clause 186.223(2) and therefore would not meet the requirements for the visa. As no response was received from the applicants, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision. The Tribunal concluded that because the employer nomination had not been approved, clause 186.223(2) was not met, and consequently, the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for the Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas to the applicants, including Mrs Harpreet Kaur and Mr Bhavnoor Singh Bal, as they failed to meet the requirements of clause 186.223(2) and clause 186.311.
The Tribunal considered the requirements of clause 186.223, which necessitates an approved nomination for the position, that the nomination has not been withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination approval. The Tribunal noted that the delegate of the Minister had refused the employer nomination, and this decision was affirmed by the Tribunal on 18 November 2019, on the basis that the nominator failed to satisfy subregulation 5.19(3) of the Regulations.
Following the affirmation of the employer nomination refusal, the Tribunal invited the visa applicants to comment on the implications of this decision, specifically noting that without an approved nomination, they would not satisfy clause 186.223(2) and therefore would not meet the requirements for the visa. As no response was received from the applicants, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision. The Tribunal concluded that because the employer nomination had not been approved, clause 186.223(2) was not met, and consequently, the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for the Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas to the applicants, including Mrs Harpreet Kaur and Mr Bhavnoor Singh Bal, as they failed to meet the requirements of clause 186.223(2) and clause 186.311.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
SINGH (Migration) [2019] AATA 6719
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0