Singh (Migration) - [2023] AATA 3034

Singh (Migration) [2023] AATA 3034 (8 September 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Armandeep Singh
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mrs Catherine Coleman (MARN: 0961462)
CASE NUMBER:  1934308
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/980859
MEMBER:Jade Murphy
DATE:8 September 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.

Statement made on 8 September 2023 at 2:33pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Motor Mechanic – subject of an approved nomination – no response to s.359A invitation – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359C, 360, 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 187.233
CASES
Singh v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 67
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 to refuse to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 1 March 2018. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).
The criteria for a Subclass 187 visa are set out in Part 187 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.
In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Motor Mechanic (General) (ANZSCO 321211).
The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination to which the application relates had not been approved by a delegate of the Minister.
On 22 August 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359A of the Act and provided particulars of information that it considered at the time would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the delegate's decision, and it invited the applicant to comment on or respond to the information.
The particulars of the information were:
·On 28 February 2018, GROTH, KARL FRITZ (“the nominator”) applied to the Department of Home Affairs (“the Department”) to nominate the applicant for the position of Motor Mechanic (General) (ANZSCO 321211).
·On 30 October 2019, the application for approval of the nominated position made by the nominator was refused by the Department. The nominator applied to the Tribunal for merits review of that decision.
·On 23 May 2023, the Tribunal affirmed…

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) [2023] AATA 3034
Case: [2023] AATA 3034
Decision Date: 8 September 2023

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 sought review of a decision to affirm the refusal of their visa application. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the position to which the applicant's visa application related was the subject of an approved nomination, as required by clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal considered the requirements of clause 187.233, which stipulated that the nominated position must be located in regional Australia, identified the applicant, and be held by the person who made the nomination. Further, the nomination must have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, with no adverse information known to the Department of Immigration concerning the nominator or associated persons, unless such information could be disregarded. The position also needed to remain available to the applicant, and the visa application lodged within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's employer's nomination had been refused by the Department, and a subsequent review application to the Tribunal had been affirmed. The applicant had failed to respond to an invitation under s 359A of the Migration Act 1958 to provide comments on this information. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the information before it indicated that the nomination application had not been approved, meaning the applicant did not meet the criteria under cl 187.233. As the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Direct Entry stream and had not met these requirements, the decision under review was affirmed.

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 EVIDENCE The issue in the present case is whether the position to which the application relates is the subject of an approved nomination.Nomination of a position Clause 187.233 as applicable in this case is set out in full in an attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires 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. In addition, this criterion also requires that:·the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the 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 reg 1.13A and reg 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. As explained to the applicant in the letter written pursuant to s.359A of the Act, the applicant’s employer’s nomination was refused by the Department and although a review application was lodged with the Tribunal, this review application has been affirmed. The applicant failed to provide any response to, or comment on, this information. The information before the Tribunal is that the nomination application for the position to which the applicant’s visa application relates has not been approved. As a result, it follows that the applicant does not meet the criteria in cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Therefore, cl 187.233 is not met. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. No claims have been made in respect of the other visa streams. As the requirements that must be met by a person seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.Jade MurphyMemberATTACHMENT A187.233(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(aa)in relation to which the applicant is identified in the application under subparagraph 5.19(4)(a)(ii); 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.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. No claims have been made in respect of the other visa streams. As the requirements that must be met by a person seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.Jade MurphyMemberATTACHMENT A187.233(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(aa)in relation to which the applicant is identified in the application under subparagraph 5.19(4)(a)(ii); 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.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.