Wang (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 2054
•15 May 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Wang (Migration) [2018] AATA 2054
[2018] AATA 2054
15 May 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Wang, in relation to a Subclass 186 Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa application. The dispute centred on whether the nominated position met the requirements of the relevant regulations. The decision was made by the Tribunal.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination as required by clause 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the position identified in the visa application corresponded with the position that was the subject of a valid nomination application, and whether that nomination had been approved and remained valid.
The Tribunal reasoned that for a Direct Entry stream application under Subclass 186, the nominated position must be one that was the subject of an application for approval under the regulations. The Tribunal found that the position of Sales and Marketing Manager, in relation to which the visa applicant was identified, was indeed the same position that was the subject of the relevant nomination application. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the employer who made the nomination was the person who would employ the applicant, and that the nomination had been approved. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.233.
Given these findings, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining criteria for the visa, with a direction that the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.233.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination as required by clause 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the position identified in the visa application corresponded with the position that was the subject of a valid nomination application, and whether that nomination had been approved and remained valid.
The Tribunal reasoned that for a Direct Entry stream application under Subclass 186, the nominated position must be one that was the subject of an application for approval under the regulations. The Tribunal found that the position of Sales and Marketing Manager, in relation to which the visa applicant was identified, was indeed the same position that was the subject of the relevant nomination application. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the employer who made the nomination was the person who would employ the applicant, and that the nomination had been approved. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.233.
Given these findings, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining criteria for the visa, with a direction that the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.233.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Wang (Migration) [2018] AATA 2054
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0