Singh (Migration) - [2022] AATA 3600

Singh (Migration) [2022] AATA 3600 (19 October 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Navpreet Singh
CASE NUMBER:  1916643
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/4384555
MEMBER:Alison Mercer
DATE:19 October 2022
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 19 October 2022 at 5:15pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – direct entry stream – motor mechanic – subject of approved position nomination – refusal of related nomination application affirmed on review – legislative amendments mean requirements cannot be satisfied by new nomination – request for extension of time made after prescribed period passed – decision made on available evidence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359A, 360(3)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 1, para 1114B(3)(d), Schedule 2, cl 186.223(2)
CASES
Hasan v MIBP [2016] FCCA 1049
Hasran v MIAC (2010) 183 FCR 413
Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCCA 564
MIAC v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Singh v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 105

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 21 November 2017. 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).
The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which required that he was the subject of an approved nomination by his Australian employer. The delegate found that the nomination of the applicant by his employer, R I K Group Pty Ltd, had been rejected by the Department on 2 May 2019. The delegate therefore found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream and had not made any claims to meet any other stream.
The Tribunal received a review application from the applicant on 26 June 2019. It was accompanied by a copy of the delegate’s decision.…

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) [2022] AATA 3600
Case: [2022] AATA 3600
Decision Date: 19 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 187 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa in the direct entry stream. The applicant, Mr. Singh, sought to have a position as a motor mechanic nominated for him by his employer, R I K Group Pty Ltd. However, the Department had refused to approve the nomination, and this refusal was affirmed on review by the Tribunal. The applicant then sought to satisfy the visa criteria, but legislative amendments and the prior refusal of the nomination meant that the requirements could not be met by a new nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which sets out the requirements for a nominated position in the direct entry stream. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination that had not been withdrawn, and whether the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval. The Tribunal also had to consider the impact of a previous Federal Court decision, *Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2017] FCAFC 105, on the interpretation of the relevant clauses.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant could not satisfy clause 187.233 because the nomination by R I K Group Pty Ltd had been refused and that decision affirmed. The Tribunal found that the applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination, a prerequisite for meeting the clause. Relying on *Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, the Tribunal held that the reference in clause 187.233 to a "position" and a "nomination" refers to a specific factual event at the time of the nomination application. Therefore, even if a new nomination were obtained for the same position, it would not be the nomination in relation to which the applicant made the required declaration in their visa application.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for a Subclass 187 visa in the direct entry stream. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.

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 EVIDENCENomination 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 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 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. It is not disputed that although the applicant was nominated by his Australian employer, R I K Group Pty Ltd, for a subclass 187 visa, the nomination by his employer was refused by the Department on 2 May 2019, and that refusal decision was affirmed by the Tribunal (differently constituted) on 22 June 2022. This means that it is no longer under review by the Tribunal and the Department refusal decision still stands. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not the subject of an approved nomination by R I K Group Pty Ltd and thus cannot satisfy cl.187.233(3). He therefore cannot meet cl.187.233 as a whole. There is no evidence that the applicant is the subject of an approved nomination by another employer, and even if he were, the Tribunal’s view is that this would not satisfy cl.187.233. This was the view taken in Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 105. The Court considered whether it would be futile to grant relief to the applicant if an argued s.359A error were made out, where the visa application was refused on the basis that the associated nomination had been refused. The Court reasoned that the words in cl.187.233 refer to a factual event, that is, whether an employer nomination had been made, and about which the visa applicant made the required declaration in the visa application, meaning even if the applicant were able to obtain a further nomination for the same position from their employer, this new nomination would not be the one in relation to which the declaration was made. Further, the 'position' referred to is a particular position that exists at the time at which the employer nomination is submitted for approval.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Therefore, the Tribunal must find that cl.187.233 is not met, and that the applicant cannot be granted a subclass 187 visa in the DE stream. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a subclass 187 visa in the DE 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 DE stream have not been met, the decision under review in relation to the applicant must be affirmed.decision The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.Alison MercerMemberATTACHMENT 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.