Singh (Migration)

[2023] AATA 1743

Singh (Migration) [2023] AATA 1743 (7 June 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Manpreet Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1930589

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/129677

MEMBER:P. Maishman

DATE:7 June 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa.

Statement made on 07 June 2023 at 3:18pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Cook – 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 186.223

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

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 Home Affairs on 9 October 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 21 January 2019. 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 (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 three alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the Direct Entry stream, or the Labour Agreement stream.

4. In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the position nominated by Cozmoz for Cook (ANZSCO code 351411).

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because there was no approved nomination for the position.

6. On 28 April 2023 the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant pursuant to s 359A of the Act, inviting the review applicant to provide comments on information that it considered would be part of the reason for affirming the decision under review in writing. The particulars of the information were:

   On 15 September 2019, the Tribunal received an application for review of the decision of the Department of Home Affairs to refuse a nomination in respect of Cozmoz. On 13 December 2022 the Tribunal affirmed the Department’s decision. Consequently, the decision made by the Department of Home Affairs on 28 August 2019 to refuse the nomination stands.

   …

   This information is relevant to the review because it is a requirement for the grant of the visa that the position specified in your visa application is the subject of an approved nomination (cl 186.223(2)).

7. The invitation was sent to the last address provided in connection with the review and advised that, if the comments were not provided in writing by 12 May 2023, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the comments and the review applicant would lose any entitlement he might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

8. The review applicant has not provided the comments within the prescribed period and no extension has been granted. In these circumstances, s 359C applies and pursuant to s 360(3) the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s 363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40. The Tribunal has decided to proceed to decision without taking further steps to obtain the comments.

9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The issue in the present case is whether there is an approved nomination for the position.

    Nomination of a position

11. 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.

12. 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 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.

13. On 21 January 2019 Cozmoz (the nominator) applied for approval of its nomination of the position of Cook (ANZSCO code 351411) to be filled by the applicant. A delegate for the Minister for Home Affairs refused that nomination on 28 August 2019. The Tribunal (differently constituted) affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination on 13 December 2022.

14. There is no information before the Tribunal that the relevant nomination has been approved.

15. The Tribunal finds the Minister has not approved the nomination as required by cl 186.223(2).

16. Therefore, cl 186.223 is not met.

17. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition 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 Temporary Residence Transition stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa.

    P. Maishman
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    186.223(1)     The position to which the application relates is the position:

    (a)nominated in an application for approval that:

    (i)identifies the applicant in relation to the position; and

    (ii)is made in relation to a visa in a Temporary Residence Transition stream; 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.