Sucha Singh (Migration)

Case

[2018] AATA 1653

2 May 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Sucha Singh (Migration) [2018] AATA 1653 [2018] AATA 1653 2 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas, specifically Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visas under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant, Mr Sucha Singh, was the nominee for the position of Transport Company Manager, with his sponsoring employer, Mr Gurbant Singh, having applied for approval of the nomination. The Department had refused the nomination application, and subsequently, the visa application, on the basis that the nomination did not satisfy regulation 5.19(4)(d)(i) of the Migration Regulations. Both Mr Gurbant Singh and Mr Sucha Singh sought review of these decisions before the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination for the position of Transport Company Manager had been approved. This was a prerequisite for the applicant to satisfy the criteria for the Subclass 187 visa, specifically clause 187.233(3) of the Migration Regulations. The Tribunal also considered the implications for secondary visa applicants, who would be unable to satisfy clause 187.311 as family members if the primary applicant's visa was refused.

The Tribunal reasoned that for applicants seeking a Subclass 187 visa under the Direct Entry stream, clause 187.233 requires the nominated position to have been the subject of an application for approval under specific regulations. Furthermore, if the nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, the position must be one in which the applicant is identified in that nomination. The Tribunal had previously affirmed the Department's decision refusing approval of the nomination. Following this, the Tribunal notified the applicant under section 359A of the Act that the lack of an approved nomination meant he could not satisfy the visa criteria. The applicant was invited to respond, but failed to do so within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision without further action, finding that the applicant had not met the requirements for the Direct Entry stream.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Jurisdiction

  • Statutory Construction

  • Appeal

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0