TODD (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1853

TODD (Migration) [2017] AATA 1853 (2 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss GEMMA TODD

CASE NUMBER:  1616282

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/3403702

MEMBER:Dr Colin Huntly

DATE:2 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.

Statement made on 02 October 2017 at 12:26pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme)  – Sponsor nomination refused

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65

Migration Regulation 1994, Schedule 2 cl 187.233, r 1.13, r 5.19

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 a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied to the Department of Immigration for the visa on 18 November 2015. 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 three alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the Direct Entry stream, or the Agreement stream.

4. In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Hair and Beauty Salon Manager.  This stream is designed for persons who have never, or have only briefly worked in the Australian labour market and are applying for the visa outside Australia, or are applying from inside Australia but are not eligible for the Temporary Residence Transition stream.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination of Lauren Wood Investments Pty Ltd was refused.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 March 2017 to give evidence and present arguments.  

7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in the present case is whether the nomination satisfies the requirements of Clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.

   Nomination of a position

10. For applicants in the Direct Entry stream, cl.187.233 requires that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nominated position under r.5.19(4)(h)(ii) of the Regulations (that is, a Direct Entry nomination in regional Australia), or under r.5.19(4) as it was prior to 1 July 2012 (that is, a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme nomination). The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration that was required to be made as part of the current visa application.

11. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made nomination

    ·the nomination has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn

    ·there is no ‘adverse information’ known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person ‘associated with’ that person (within the meaning of r.1.13A and r.1.13B); or it is reasonable to disregard any such information

    ·the position is still available to the applicant, and

    ·the visa application was made no more than six months after the nomination of the position was approved.

12. The Tribunal finds that the nomination for the position by Lauren Wood Investments Pty Ltd has not been approved.

13. Therefore, cl.187.233 is not met.

    CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH (ALL ISSUES)

14. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream.  No claims have been made in respect of the other visa streams.  As the requirements that must be met by a person seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

15. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.

    Dr Colin Huntly
    Member