SINGH (Migration)

[2019] AATA 2857

SINGH (Migration) [2019] AATA 2857 (26 February 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr RANDEEP SINGH
Mrs SHARNJIT KAUR

CASE NUMBER:  1725719

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/2272865

MEMBER:Peter Emmerton

DATE:26 February 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

· Clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

Statement made on 26 February 2019 at 11:30am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Baker ANZSCO 351111 – no approved nomination – tribunal approved nomination – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 186.223, rr 1.13A, 1.13B, 5.13(3)

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 Immigration and Border Protection on 6 October 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant Employer Nomination (Class EN) visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2.    The applicants applied for the visas on 27 June 2017. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).

3. 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 stream, the Direct Entry stream, or the Labour Agreement stream.

4.    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 Baker, ANZSCO 351111.

5. On 6 October 2017, the delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination lodged by the Trustee for the Mullen Trust (the Trust) was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 10 August 2017. That nomination is the one referred to in cl.186.223(1) in respect of the applicant’s application. Therefore the application failed under cl.186.223(2), and accordingly the applicant was found not to satisfy the requirements of cl.186.223.

6.    The applicant was represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

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

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8.    The issue in the present case is this case is whether the Trust’s nomination has been approved.

Nomination of a position

9.    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.

1. 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.

2. On 27 June 2017, an application for an Employer Nomination Scheme (class EN, subclass 186) visa was lodged by the applicant in relation to an appointment of a Baker (ANZSCO 351111). On 10 August 2018, that application was refused by a delegate of the Minister.

3. On 26 February 2019 the Tribunal set aside the Department’s decision and substituted a decision approving the appointment for the position of Baker.[1] Based on the evidence provided in that application, the Tribunal is satisfied the approved position is the same as the one that was the subject of the relevant r 5.19(3) nomination application. The Tribunal is also satisfied the position is the same as that in the visa application declaration. Therefore, cl.186.233(1) is met.

   [1]    See MRT decision file ref 1718661.

4. The Tribunal relies on its findings in the Trust’s nomination application[2] to find the person who will employ the applicant is the person who was the nominator in the application for approval. Therefore, cl.186.223(2) is met in light of the Tribunal’s approval of the appointment under  r 5.13(3).

   [2]    Ibid.

5. The Tribunal is also satisfied on all the evidence before it, including evidence submitted in relation to the Trust’s nomination application, that the relevant appointment has not been withdrawn and is still available to the visa applicant. Therefore, cls.186.223(3) and (4) are met. The application for the visa was made on 27 June 2017, which is before the nomination was approved on 26 February 2019. As the visa application was made on a date which is no more than 6 months after the approval, cl.186.223(5) is met.

6. On the evidence before the Tribunal, there is no adverse information known to immigration authorities about either the person who made the nomination or any person associated with that person. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirement in cl.186.223(3A) is met.

7. The Tribunal therefore finds the visa applicant satisfies the requirements specified in cl.186.223. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

   Decision

8. The Tribunal remits the application for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

   ·Clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

Peter Emmerton
Member

ATTACHMENT A

186.223(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.