T N LUU AND M L LY (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2012

T N LUU AND M L LY (Migration) [2018] AATA 2012 (14 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  T N LUU AND M L LY

CASE NUMBER:  1608269

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/2505290

MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic

DATE:14 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

Statement made on 14 May 2018 at 6:01pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Nomination refusal – Café or Restaurant Manager – Direct Entry nomination stream – Failed to respond to Tribunal request within the prescribed period – Terms and conditions no less favourable –Decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 359, 360, 363
Migration Regulations 1994, r 5.19

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 18 May 2016 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under r.5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

2. The applicant applied for approval on 28 August 2015. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in r.5.19 of the Regulations which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination (r.5.19(3)) stream and a Direct Entry nomination (r.5.19(4)) stream. If the application is made in accordance with r.5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met then the application must be refused: r.5.19(5).

3. In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Direct Entry Nomination stream. The nominated occupation was Café or Restaurant Manager (ANZSCO 141111).

4. The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy r.5.19 (4)(h)(ii)(d) of the Regulations. The delegate was not satisfied on the evidence presented that the tasks to be performed in the position correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph.

5. The applicant applied to the Tribunal on 7 June 2016 for review of the delegate’s decision and with the application submitted a copy of the primary decision.

6. On 26 April 2018, the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act. The Tribunal letter advised that the applicant was required to meet the criteria in r.5.19(4) to the Regulations. The letter invited the applicant to provide information in writing that will demonstrate the applicant meet all of the requirements of r.5.19(4).

7. The invitation was send to the review applicant’s address provided in connection with the review. The applicant was advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by 10 May 2018, or the applicant had not made a request for an extension of time in which to provide information, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the information and the review applicant would lose any entitlement it might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

8. The applicant had not provided the information within the prescribed period and no extension had been sought or granted. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.

9. The Tribunal has also considered whether it should adjourn the review under subsection 363(1)(b) of the Act to allow the applicant additional time in which to provide further evidence to support the review application.

10. The Tribunal considered whether, in the circumstances of this case, the evidence that the applicant meets all of the requirements of r.5.19(4) is likely to be forthcoming, whether the applicant had a fair opportunity to provide the relevant information or documents already, and the significance of the information or documents to the applicant.

11. The Tribunal has had regard to the fact that the nomination application was refused by the Department on 18 May 2016. The applicant submitted a copy of the primary decision record with the review application.

12. With its acknowledgment letter of 10 June 2016 2016, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide material or written arguments in support of the review application. The applicant has failed to do so.

13. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant under subsection 359(2) of the Act inviting the applicant to provide information demonstrating that the nomination meets all the requirements of the criteria in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations. The applicant has failed to provide requested information within the prescribed period set for this purpose.

14. The Tribunal notes that the business is not prevented from lodging a new nomination application with the Department.

15. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers the applicant has had sufficient time in which to address the central issues arising in the application for review. Accordingly, the Tribunal has decided not to exercise its discretion under subsection 363(1)(b) of the Act to adjourn the review any further. The Tribunal has determined to make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain the information in accordance with section 359C of the Act.

16. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to affirm the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

17. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Direct Entry nomination stream set out in r.5.19(4), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.

    No less favourable terms and condition of employment: r.5.19(4)(e)

18. Regulation 5.19(4)(e) requires that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.

19. The Tribunal has no contemporary information before it concerning whether or not the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.

20. By reference to the information presently before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the conditions of employment for the nominee will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that are or would be provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.

21. Accordingly the requirements of r.5.19 (4)(e) are not met.

22. For the above reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of r.5.19(4). The applicant has not sought to satisfy the criteria in Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream, and as such has not met the requirements in r.5.19(3). Accordingly, the nomination of the position cannot be approved. Therefore, the Tribunal must affirm the decision under review.

    DECISION

23. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

    Antonio Dronjic
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  -  EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994

    5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)

    …

    (2)The application must:

    (a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and

    (b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.

    …

    Direct Entry nomination

    (4)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:

    (a)the application for approval:

    (i)       is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and

    (ii)      identifies a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control; and

    (b)the nominator:

    (i)       is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and

    (ii)      directly operates the business; and

    (c)for a nominator whose business activities include activities relating to the hiring of labour to other unrelated businesses — the position is within the business activities of the nominator and not for hire to other unrelated businesses; and

    (d)both of the following apply:

    (i)       the employee will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years;

    (ii)      the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and

    (e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:

    (i)       are provided; or

    (ii)      would be provided;

    to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and

    (f)either:

    (i)       there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or

    (ii)      it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and

    (g)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations; and

    (h)either:

    (i)       both of the following apply:

    (A)the tasks to be performed in the position will be performed in Australia and correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph;

    (AAA)the occupation is applicable to the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii) in accordance with the specification of the occupation;

    (B)either:

    (I)the nominator’s business has operated for at least 12 months, and the nominator meets the requirements for the training of Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents that are specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-sub-subparagraph; or

    (II)the nominator’s business has operated for less than 12 months, and the nominator has an auditable plan for meeting the requirements specified in the instrument mentioned in sub-sub-subparagraph (I); or

    (ii)      all of the following apply:

    (A)the position is located in regional Australia;

    (B)there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control;

    (C)the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident who is living in the same local area as that place;

    (D)the tasks to be performed in the position correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph;

    (DA)the occupation is applicable to the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii) in accordance with the specification of the occupation;

    (E)the business operated by the nominator is located at that place;

    (F)a body that is:

    (I)specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph; and

    (II)located in the same State or Territory as the location of the position;

    has advised the Minister about the matters mentioned in paragraph (e) and sub-subparagraphs (B) and (C).