Verma (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1783

Verma (Migration) [2018] AATA 1783 (31 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Kunal Verma

CASE NUMBER:  1707106

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/3517828

MEMBER:Stavros Georgiadis

DATE:31 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

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

Statement made on 31 May 2018 at 12:38pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa – No nomination approval – Decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 ss 65, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994 r 5.19 Schedule 2 cl 187.233

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 and Border Protection 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 for the visa on 25 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 Restaurant 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 there was no approved nomination of the occupation to satisfy cl.187.233(3).

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 May 2018 to give evidence and present arguments.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The issue in the present case is whether the visa applicant meets the criteria for grant of the (Class RN) Subclass 187 visa. 

   Nomination of a position

9. 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. In addition, where the associated nomination is made on or after 1 July 2017, the position must be the position in relation to which the applicant is identified in that nomination under r.5.19(4)(a)(ii).

10. 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.

11. The Tribunal has examined the visa application on the Department file and notes that the required declaration has been made in relation to the position nominated by the employer sponsor (cl.187.233(1)).

12. The Tribunal is satisfied, from the documentary and oral evidence before it, that the person who will employ the applicant is the nominator in the application for approval, Curry and Kebab Bistro Pty Ltd. (cl.187.233(2)).

13. At the hearing the Tribunal put to the applicant, in accordance with the procedure under s.359AA of the Act, that without an approved nomination, he would not meet necessary criteria to satisfy cl.187.233 (specifically cl.187.233(3)) for the grant of the visa and that the application would, on that basis, be unsuccessful. The Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on, or respond to, the information that a decision had been made by the delegate on 25 July 2016 to refuse the nomination and that this would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review. The Tribunal also advised the applicant that he could seek additional time to comment on, or respond to, the information and that the Tribunal would consider adjourning the review if it considered the applicant reasonably needed additional time to comment on, or respond to, the information.

14. The applicant did not require additional time to comment or respond.  The applicant conveyed to the Tribunal that he understands and accepts that in circumstances where there is no nomination approval, it would not be open for his visa application to be successful as approval of the nomination is one of the requirements for the grant of the visa.  He told the Tribunal that there is no approved nomination.

15. Having considered the available evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the nominated position is the subject of the relevant r.5.19 nomination application. The Tribunal has no evidence before it that the nomination is approved so as to satisfy the requirement of cl.187.233(3). The Tribunal finds that the nomination of the position to which the application relates is not approved.

16. Therefore, cl.187.233 is not met.

17. 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

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

    Stavros Georgiadis
    Member