The Cootharinga Society of North Queensland (Migration)
Case
•
[2017] AATA 72
•12 January 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
The Cootharinga Society of North Queensland (Migration) [2017] AATA 72
[2017] AATA 72
12 January 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by The Cootharinga Society of North Queensland against a decision to refuse a nomination for a position under the Direct Entry nomination stream. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination as set out in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated position, described as a Disabilities Services Officer, met the criteria under regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii). This subregulation requires the position to be located in regional Australia, for there to be a genuine need for the position, that it cannot be filled by a local Australian citizen or permanent resident, and that the tasks correspond to an occupation at ANZSCO skill level 1, 2, or 3. Additionally, a specified regional certifying body must have advised the Minister on certain matters relating to the position.
The Tribunal considered the evidence and the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii). While the position was located in regional Australia (Townsville) and a regional certifying body, Townsville Enterprise Limited, had provided certification regarding the inability to fill the position locally, the Tribunal was not satisfied that all requirements were met. The Tribunal noted that while it must have regard to the advice of the regional certifying body, it is not bound by that advice and may reach a different conclusion. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria under regulation 5.19(4).
The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated position, described as a Disabilities Services Officer, met the criteria under regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii). This subregulation requires the position to be located in regional Australia, for there to be a genuine need for the position, that it cannot be filled by a local Australian citizen or permanent resident, and that the tasks correspond to an occupation at ANZSCO skill level 1, 2, or 3. Additionally, a specified regional certifying body must have advised the Minister on certain matters relating to the position.
The Tribunal considered the evidence and the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii). While the position was located in regional Australia (Townsville) and a regional certifying body, Townsville Enterprise Limited, had provided certification regarding the inability to fill the position locally, the Tribunal was not satisfied that all requirements were met. The Tribunal noted that while it must have regard to the advice of the regional certifying body, it is not bound by that advice and may reach a different conclusion. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria under regulation 5.19(4).
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0