Sukhdeep Singh (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 6668
•8 November 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sukhdeep Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 6668
[2019] AATA 6668
8 November 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision relating to a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought review in relation to an approved nomination for the position of Cook, made by Latitude North Hotels Pty Ltd, trading as Grand Hotel Thursday Island. The Tribunal, constituted by Member Lilly Mojsin, considered whether the applicant met criterion cl.187.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.223, which outlines specific requirements for a nominated position in the Direct Entry stream of the Subclass 187 visa. This clause necessitates that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, that the employer who made the nomination is the prospective employer, that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, that there is no adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available to the applicant, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the nominated position of Cook, located on Thursday Island, met the definition of regional Australia. It was established that the employer who made the nomination was the prospective employer, and the nomination had been approved by the Tribunal on 8 November 2019 and had not been withdrawn. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not aware of any adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, the position was confirmed as still available, and the visa application was made prior to the nomination's approval. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that criterion cl.187.223 had been met.
Given these findings, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the first named applicant meets criterion cl.187.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.223, which outlines specific requirements for a nominated position in the Direct Entry stream of the Subclass 187 visa. This clause necessitates that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, that the employer who made the nomination is the prospective employer, that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, that there is no adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available to the applicant, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.
The Tribunal found that the nominated position of Cook, located on Thursday Island, met the definition of regional Australia. It was established that the employer who made the nomination was the prospective employer, and the nomination had been approved by the Tribunal on 8 November 2019 and had not been withdrawn. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not aware of any adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, the position was confirmed as still available, and the visa application was made prior to the nomination's approval. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that criterion cl.187.223 had been met.
Given these findings, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the first named applicant meets criterion cl.187.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0