Syed (Migration)

Case

[2021] AATA 5663

1 June 2021


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Syed (Migration) [2021] AATA 5663 [2021] AATA 5663 1 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, under the Direct Entry stream. The dispute arose because the nomination application associated with the applicant's proposed position as a Hair Salon Manager was not approved, and consequently, the applicant was deemed not to meet an essential criterion for the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the position to which the visa application relates must be the subject of an approved nomination in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia, and must be the position identified in the visa application. Further requirements include that the nominator must be the prospective employer, the nomination must have been approved and not withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to the Department of Immigration, the position must remain available, and the visa application must be made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's nominator, JESS & JAMES HAIR AND MAKEUP PTY LTD, had its nomination application for the Hair Salon Manager position rejected on 11 March 2019. A subsequent review of this refusal was found to be outside the AAT's jurisdiction because the company had been deregistered. This meant there was no approved nomination, nor a pending review of the refusal, that concerned the applicant. The Tribunal relied on established authority, including *Hasan v MIBP* [2016] FCCA 1049 and *Singh v MIBP* [2017] FCAFC 105, which indicate that a visa applicant cannot satisfy the relevant criteria without an approved nomination or a pending review of a nomination refusal.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 187 visa, as the essential criterion requiring an approved nomination had not been met.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Standing

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

4

Hasan v MIBP [2016] FCCA 1049