Tantry (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3066

Tantry (Migration) [2019] AATA 3066 (1 May 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Parthasarathi Tantry

CASE NUMBER:  1725197

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/998775

MEMBER:Katie Malyon

DATE:1 May 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 visa:

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

Statement made on 01 May 2019 at 5:12 pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa – Subclass 187 – Direct Entry stream – nomination not approved – Restaurant Supervisor – tribunal approved nomination – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, r 5.19(4)(h), cl 187.233(3)

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 to refuse to grant the applicant, Indian national Mr Parthasarathi Tantry, a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).  

2. Mr Tantry applied for the visa on 14 March 2017.  The delegate refused to grant the visa on 26 September 2017.

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 2 alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream; or, the Direct Entry stream.

4. In the present case, Mr Tantry, is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream to work in the nominated position of Restaurant Supervisor.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because Mr Tantry did not meet cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination made by his employer, Mulpha Hotel Pty Ltd (the Company), was not approved.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. On 1 May 2019, the Tribunal approved the nomination made by the Company for the position of Restaurant Supervisor in respect of nominee Mr Parthasarathi Tantry under r.5.19(4)(h) of the Regulations. Accordingly, cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations is now met.

8. Given this finding, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

   DECISION

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

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

   Katie Malyon

   
   Member