Taheri (Migration)

[2019] AATA 2377

Taheri (Migration) [2019] AATA 2377 (15 April 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Hamid Taheri

CASE NUMBER:  1711233

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2016/3124077

MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic

DATE:15 April 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:

·cl.187.233 (3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 15 April 2019 at 12:33pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme – Direct Entry stream – position of Mechanical Engineering Draftsperson – nomination approved upon review – decision under review remitted           

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 187.233

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 and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 20 September 2016. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).

3. The criteria for a Subclass 187 visa are set out in Part 187 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria. Applicants seeking to satisfy the primary criteria must meet the 'Common criteria', as well as the criteria of one of two alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, or the Direct Entry stream.

4. In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Mechanical Engineering Draftsperson.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233 (3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination application that was lodged by the applicant’s prospective employer was refused by the Department on 11 April 2017.

6. The applicant applied to the tribunal on 26 May 2017 for review of the delegate’s decisions. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

7. In reaching its decision the tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the visa applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to section 360(2)(a) of the Act

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Nomination of a position

8. Clause 187.233 as applicable in this case is set out in full in an attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration made as part of the current visa application. In addition, where the associated nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, it must identify the applicant in relation to the position.

9. On 11 April 2017, the Department refused the nomination application lodged by the applicant’s prospective employer, Ainsbury Holdings Pty Ltd.

10. On 26 April 2017, Ainsbury Holdings Pty Ltd applied to this Tribunal for review of the Department’s decision to refuse the nomination application.

11. On 10 April 2019, the Tribunal set aside the primary decision and substituted it with its decision that the nomination is approved.

12. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied on the available evidence that the nomination has now been approved.

13. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

    DECISION

14. The Tribunal remits the application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:

    ·cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and

    Antonio Dronjic
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    187.233(1)      The position to which the application relates is the position:

    (a)nominated in an application for approval that seeks to meet the requirements of:

    (i)subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii); or

    (ii)subregulation 5.19(4) as in force before 1 July 2012; and

    (b)in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114C(3)(d) of Schedule 1 was made in the application for the grant of the visa.

    (2)      The person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the nomination.

    (3)      The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (4)      The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (4A)    Either:

    (a)there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person associated with that person; or

    (b)it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person associated with that person.

    (5)      The position is still available to the applicant.

    (6)      The application for the visa is made no more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.