Suman (Migration)

Case

[2020] AATA 1336

25 April 2020


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Suman (Migration) [2020] AATA 1336 [2020] AATA 1336 25 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Suman, against a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal. The applicant sought an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 Temporary Residence Transition stream, for the occupation of Hairdresser. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which pertains to the approval of the nomination for the position.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria under cl.186.223 of the Regulations. This involved assessing whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination application that identified the visa applicant, whether the nomination had been approved and not withdrawn, whether there was any adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, if the position remained available to the applicant, and if the visa application was lodged within six months of the nomination's approval. The Tribunal also considered whether the secondary applicants met the criteria for the visa as members of the applicant's family unit.

The Tribunal reasoned that following a hearing and reconsideration of the nomination application, it had set aside the primary decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination. Based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal was satisfied that the nomination had been approved and not withdrawn, there was no adverse information, the position of Hairdresser had been occupied by the applicant on a full-time basis since at least 2 January 2015 and continued to be so with a contract of employment for a minimum of two years, and the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval. Consequently, the Tribunal found that cl.186.223 was met for the primary applicant and that the secondary applicants were members of the family unit who had made a combined application.

Given these findings, the Tribunal remitted the visa applications for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the primary applicant met the criteria under cl.186.223 and the secondary applicants met the criteria under cl.186.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0