STANLEY THOMAS GORDON PTY. LTD. (Migration)

Case

[2018] AATA 365

6 February 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
STANLEY THOMAS GORDON PTY. LTD. (Migration) [2018] AATA 365 [2018] AATA 365 6 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal regarding the refusal to approve an employer nomination for a Subclass 457 visa. The applicant, STANLEY THOMAS GORDON PTY. LTD., had nominated an HR Adviser (ANZSCO code 223111) for a position. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated occupation met the legislative requirements at the time the nomination was assessed, particularly in light of subsequent legislative amendments.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the nominated occupation, HR Adviser (ANZSCO code 223111), corresponded to an occupation and its 6-digit code specified in the relevant written instrument in force at the time of the decision. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the impact of legislative changes that occurred after the nomination was lodged on 10 June 2016, which superseded previous occupation lists with new instruments, IMMI 16/059 and subsequently IMMI 17/060.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the nominated occupation was listed on the Consolidated Skilled Occupation List (CSOL) under IMMI 15/092 at the time of lodgement, significant legislative amendments took effect on 19 April 2017 and 1 July 2017. These amendments introduced new instruments (IMMI 16/059 and IMMI 17/060) which replaced the previous lists. The nominated occupation of HR Adviser was not included in either the Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List (MLTSSL) or the Short-term Skilled Occupation List (STSOL) under these new instruments. Regulation 2.72(10)(aa) of the Migration Regulations 1994 requires that the nominated occupation and its 6-digit code correspond to an occupation and code specified in the applicable written instrument. As the HR Adviser occupation was no longer listed in the relevant instruments in force at the time of the decision, the applicant failed to meet this criterion.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination, finding that the applicant did not meet the applicable criteria for approval.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Appeal

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0