Singh (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 2189
•10 May 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Singh (Migration) [2018] AATA 2189
[2018] AATA 2189
10 May 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Singh against a decision to refuse him a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 187 Direct Entry stream. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had met the mandatory requirement of being the subject of an approved nomination for the position he sought to be employed in.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria for the grant of the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. This involved assessing whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination as required by clause 187.233 of the Regulations, and whether all associated conditions, such as the nominator being the prospective employer, the nomination not being withdrawn, and the position remaining available, were met.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the critical requirement of an approved nomination. It noted that while the applicant had made the required declaration and the prospective employer, EXQUISITE FOOD GROUP PTY LTD, was identified, the nomination itself had been refused by the Tribunal in a separate proceeding. The Tribunal had previously informed the applicant that without an approved nomination, he would be unable to satisfy clause 187.233(3) of the Regulations. Despite being given an opportunity to comment on this adverse information, the applicant had not provided a response that would overcome the refusal of the nomination.
Consequently, as the essential criterion of having an approved nomination had not been met, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 187 visa.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria for the grant of the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. This involved assessing whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination as required by clause 187.233 of the Regulations, and whether all associated conditions, such as the nominator being the prospective employer, the nomination not being withdrawn, and the position remaining available, were met.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the critical requirement of an approved nomination. It noted that while the applicant had made the required declaration and the prospective employer, EXQUISITE FOOD GROUP PTY LTD, was identified, the nomination itself had been refused by the Tribunal in a separate proceeding. The Tribunal had previously informed the applicant that without an approved nomination, he would be unable to satisfy clause 187.233(3) of the Regulations. Despite being given an opportunity to comment on this adverse information, the applicant had not provided a response that would overcome the refusal of the nomination.
Consequently, as the essential criterion of having an approved nomination had not been met, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 187 visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Singh (Migration) [2018] AATA 2189
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0