Sukhwant Kaur (Migration)

[2018] AATA 5782

Sukhwant Kaur (Migration) [2018] AATA 5782 (9 October 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Sukhwant Kaur
Mr Ranjit Singh
Mr Pahuldeep Singh Virk
Miss Savneet Kaur Virk

CASE NUMBER:  1816693

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/2400748

MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic

DATE AND TIME OF

ORAL DECISION AND REASONS:          9 October 2018 at 11:25 am (VIC time)

DATE OF WRITTEN RECORD:                11 December 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

Statement made on 11 December 2018 at 11:38am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Cook – nomination withdrawn – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 187.233

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 1 June 2018 to refuse to grant the visa applicants  Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) Subclass 187 visas under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry Stream to work in the nominated position of a cook.

3. According to the primary decision record provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, the nomination application lodged by WA Business Enterprise Pty Ltd has been withdrawn. The first named applicant confirmed this in her evidence and stated that, at the time of the Tribunal decision, she is not the subject of an approved nomination.

4. At the hearing on 9 October 2018 the Tribunal made an oral decision and gave an oral statement of decision and reasons. The following is the written record of those reasons.

   STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

5. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the appointment mentioned in subclause 187.233 lodged by WA Business Enterprise Pty Ltd on behalf of the first named applicant, has not been approved at the time of the Tribunal’s decision. As a result, the Tribunal finds that the first named applicant does not meet the requirements of clause 187.233(3) at the time of its decision. Consequently, the first named applicant does not meet the requirements of cl.187.233 to the Migration Regulations.

6. The first named applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry 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 Direct Entry stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.

7. The tribunal must also affirm the decision not to grant the second, third and fourth named applicants a subclass 187 visa as they do not meet the secondary visa criteria to be members of the family unit of a person who holds a subclass 187 visa, and there is no evidence that they meet the primary visa criteria for this subclass in their own right.

   DECISION

8. The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

   Antonio Dronjic
   Member