TAIYAKUPT (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 6665
•5 November 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
TAIYAKUPT (Migration) [2019] AATA 6665
[2019] AATA 6665
5 November 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Temporary Residence Transition stream, for a Chef. The applicant's visa application was lodged on 23 June 2017. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to consider the applicant's eligibility for the visa, particularly in light of a subsequent Tribunal decision that approved the nomination.
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 187 visa, specifically clause 187.223, which requires an approved nomination for the position. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant met the criteria for the Direct Entry Stream and the Agreement Stream, and whether any family members were eligible as members of the family unit. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the applicant had satisfied the requirements of the visa, given the initial refusal of the nomination and its subsequent approval by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the initial nomination lodged by the sponsor, Gasiinsamut Thai Fusion Restaurant Pty Ltd, was refused on 3 April 2018, leading to the applicant being found not to have met clause 187.223(2). The applicant also failed to meet the criteria for the Direct Entry Stream and the Agreement Stream. However, a subsequent Tribunal decision on 5 November 2019 approved the nomination. The Tribunal was satisfied that the approved nomination met the requirements of clause 187.223(2), that the nomination had not been withdrawn, that there was no adverse information concerning the nominator, that the position was located in regional Australia and remained available to the applicant, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination approval.
Given these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the appropriate course was to remit the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the first named applicant met the criteria under clause 187.223(2) for a Subclass 187 visa.
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 187 visa, specifically clause 187.223, which requires an approved nomination for the position. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant met the criteria for the Direct Entry Stream and the Agreement Stream, and whether any family members were eligible as members of the family unit. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the applicant had satisfied the requirements of the visa, given the initial refusal of the nomination and its subsequent approval by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the initial nomination lodged by the sponsor, Gasiinsamut Thai Fusion Restaurant Pty Ltd, was refused on 3 April 2018, leading to the applicant being found not to have met clause 187.223(2). The applicant also failed to meet the criteria for the Direct Entry Stream and the Agreement Stream. However, a subsequent Tribunal decision on 5 November 2019 approved the nomination. The Tribunal was satisfied that the approved nomination met the requirements of clause 187.223(2), that the nomination had not been withdrawn, that there was no adverse information concerning the nominator, that the position was located in regional Australia and remained available to the applicant, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination approval.
Given these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the appropriate course was to remit the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the first named applicant met the criteria under clause 187.223(2) for a Subclass 187 visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
TAIYAKUPT (Migration) [2019] AATA 6665
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0