THE TRUSTEE FOR SHREE SAI SHIRIDI UNIT TRUST (Migration)
Case
•
[2020] AATA 612
•5 March 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
THE TRUSTEE FOR SHREE SAI SHIRIDI UNIT TRUST (Migration) [2020] AATA 612
[2020] AATA 612
5 March 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by THE TRUSTEE FOR SHREE SAI SHIRIDI UNIT TRUST concerning the refusal of a nomination for a position under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to have the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination set aside.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the tasks of the nominated position corresponded to those of an occupation listed in the relevant instrument and if the occupation was at ANZSCO skill level 1 to 3, as required by regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D).
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to provide requested information. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to submit updated details regarding the nominated position's roles and duties and how they aligned with ANZSCO descriptions, suggesting the provision of job descriptions or work samples. As no response was received, the Tribunal was unable to be satisfied that the tasks of the position corresponded to those of a specified occupation, nor that the position met the required ANZSCO skill level. Consequently, the Tribunal found that regulation 5.19(4)(h) was not met.
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination. The applicant had not satisfied the criteria under regulation 5.19(4) and had not sought to satisfy the alternative criteria under the Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream (regulation 5.19(3)). Therefore, the nomination could not be approved.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the tasks of the nominated position corresponded to those of an occupation listed in the relevant instrument and if the occupation was at ANZSCO skill level 1 to 3, as required by regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D).
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to provide requested information. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to submit updated details regarding the nominated position's roles and duties and how they aligned with ANZSCO descriptions, suggesting the provision of job descriptions or work samples. As no response was received, the Tribunal was unable to be satisfied that the tasks of the position corresponded to those of a specified occupation, nor that the position met the required ANZSCO skill level. Consequently, the Tribunal found that regulation 5.19(4)(h) was not met.
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination. The applicant had not satisfied the criteria under regulation 5.19(4) and had not sought to satisfy the alternative criteria under the Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream (regulation 5.19(3)). Therefore, the nomination could not be approved.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0