Singh (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 2458
•15 May 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 2458
[2019] AATA 2458
15 May 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa (Subclass 187) in the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The applicant, Mr. Singh, sought to have a decision of the Department of Immigration affirmed by the Tribunal. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant had an approved standard business sponsor, a prerequisite for the visa.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa, specifically clause 187.223, which pertains to the nomination of a position. This clause necessitates, among other things, that the nomination has been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position is located in regional Australia and remains available to the applicant, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant could not satisfy clause 187.223 because the application for approval as a standard business sponsor by ASHM Associates Pty Ltd had been refused. Consequently, the applicant lacked an approved standard business sponsor. The Tribunal had also invited the applicant to comment on this decision, but no response was received. Given that the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition stream and had failed to meet the essential requirement of an approved nomination, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa, specifically clause 187.223, which pertains to the nomination of a position. This clause necessitates, among other things, that the nomination has been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position is located in regional Australia and remains available to the applicant, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant could not satisfy clause 187.223 because the application for approval as a standard business sponsor by ASHM Associates Pty Ltd had been refused. Consequently, the applicant lacked an approved standard business sponsor. The Tribunal had also invited the applicant to comment on this decision, but no response was received. Given that the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition stream and had failed to meet the essential requirement of an approved nomination, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 2458
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0