Victory International Students Support Services Pty (Migration)
Case
•
[2022] AATA 1905
•19 April 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Victory International Students Support Services Pty (Migration) [2022] AATA 1905
[2022] AATA 1905
19 April 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by Victory International Students Support Services Pty (Migration) for approval of a nomination under the Direct Entry nomination stream. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the nomination to be approved.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the nominated business had the financial capacity to employ the nominated person, a Program or Project Administrator (ANZSCO 511112), on a full-time basis for at least two years, as required by regulation 5.19(4)(d)(i). The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had responded to a request for further information under subsection 359(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the information provided to the Department and the Tribunal was over three years old and therefore could not be given any weight. Despite being invited to provide updated information demonstrating the business's financial capacity, the applicant failed to respond. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the nominating business had demonstrated its financial capacity to pay the nominated salary for the required period. As this requirement of regulation 5.19(4)(d) was not met, the Tribunal was not required to consider the remaining criteria.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination, as the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of regulation 5.19(4). The applicant had also not sought to satisfy the criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream, thus failing to meet the requirements of regulation 5.19(3).
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the nominated business had the financial capacity to employ the nominated person, a Program or Project Administrator (ANZSCO 511112), on a full-time basis for at least two years, as required by regulation 5.19(4)(d)(i). The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had responded to a request for further information under subsection 359(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the information provided to the Department and the Tribunal was over three years old and therefore could not be given any weight. Despite being invited to provide updated information demonstrating the business's financial capacity, the applicant failed to respond. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the nominating business had demonstrated its financial capacity to pay the nominated salary for the required period. As this requirement of regulation 5.19(4)(d) was not met, the Tribunal was not required to consider the remaining criteria.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination, as the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of regulation 5.19(4). The applicant had also not sought to satisfy the criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream, thus failing to meet the requirements of regulation 5.19(3).
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Appeal
-
Statutory Construction
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Yang v MIAC
[2010] FMCA 890
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2002] FCA 617
Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2012] FMCA 28