Wang (Migration)

[2020] AATA 3512

Wang (Migration) [2020] AATA 3512 (3 July 2020)

CORRIGENDUM

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Mingqun Wang

CASE NUMBER:  1817157

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/2028689

MEMBER:Karen McNamara

DATE OF DECISION:  3 July 2020

DATE CORRIGENDUM

SIGNED:11 September 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

AMENDMENT:  The following corrections are made to the decision:

1. The date ‘3 July 2017’ on the cover page of the Decision Record, should be replaced with the date, ‘3 July 2020’.

   Karen McNamara
   Member

   
   

   DECISION RECORD

   DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

   APPLICANT:  Mr Mingqun Wang

   CASE NUMBER:  1817157

   HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/2028689

   MEMBER:Karen McNamara

   DATE:3 July 2017

   PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

   DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa.

   Statement made on 3 July 2020 at 2:37pm

   CATCHWORDS

   MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) Visa – Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme – Temporary Residence Transition stream – position of Accountant (General) – no approved nomination – decision under review affirmed

   LEGISLATION

   Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 2
   Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359
   Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 186.223; r 1.13

   STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

   APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

2. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the delegate) on 24 May 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

3. The applicant applied for the visa on 8 June 2017. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).

4. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 186 visa are set out in Part 186 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 Labour Agreement stream.

5. In the present case, Mr Mingqun Wang (the applicant) is seeking the visa in Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Accountant (General) (ANZSCO 221111).

6. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations which required Mr Mingqun Wang to be the subject of an approved nomination. The delegate found that the nomination lodged by PY Green Health Pty Ltd (the nominator) was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 18 April 2018.

7. Accordingly, as the nomination application had been refused, the delegate found that cl.186.223(2) was not met and therefore the applicant did not meet cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

8. The applicant applied to the Tribunal on 12 June 2018 for review of the delegate’s decision.

9. On 14 May 2020, Mr Mingqun Wang appeared before the Tribunal via telephone, to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr Zhe Xu (the nominator) in the related matter for the nomination application (AAT Case file 1813153). The related matters were heard concurrently in a combined hearing. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

10. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

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

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

13. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.186.223.

    Nomination of a position

14. Clause 186.223 as applicable in this case is set out in full in the attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that the position to which the application relates is the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Temporary Residence Transition stream that identifies the visa applicant. 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.

15. In addition, this criterion also requires that:

    ·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.

16. On the 17 June 2020, the Tribunal affirmed the decision refusing the approval of the nomination made by PY Green Health Pty Ltd (the nominator) in respect of the applicant. As the nomination has been refused, the applicant does not satisfy cl.186.223(2) and as such cl.186.223 is not met.

17. On 18 June 2020, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(A) of the Act (dispatched by email to the authorised recipient). The letter invited the applicant to comment on or respond to, information which the Tribunal considered would, subject to his comments or response, be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. The information related to the Tribunal’s decision to affirm the decision not to approve the nomination made by PY Green Health Pty Ltd, which the Tribunal explained was relevant to the applicant meeting cl.186.223(2) which requires the nomination to be approved. As the nomination has been refused, cl.186.223(2) is not met.

18. The invitation was sent to the last address provided in connection with the review and advised that, if the comments or response were not provided in writing by 2 July 2020 the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the comments and the review applicants would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act.

19. On the 2 July 2020, the applicant’s representative submitted on behalf of the applicant the following:

    ‘Dear Sir or Madam,

    My name is Mingqun WANG, and I am writing to make a request to the Administrative
    Appeal Tribunal (AAT) for a deferral of the decision on my Employer Nomination Scheme
    (ENS, subclass 186) visa refusal from the Department of Home Affairs.

    My employer nominated me for my subclass 186 visa application. The nomination was
    rejected on 18 April 2018 by the Department of Home Affairs, so then my subclass 186 visa
    application was later rejected. On 7 May 2018, I applied to the AAT for review of the
    Department’s decision. On 18 June 2020, I received the decision notification from the AAT,
    which affirms the Department’s decision to reject my nomination. I do not agree with the
    decision made by the AAT to affirm the Department’s nomination refusal, so I am planning to
    appeal to the Federal Court of Australia against the AAT’s decision.

    Currently, my appeal against the Department’s subclass 186 visa refusal is still being
    processed by the AAT, on which the decision is closely associated with the final result of my
    appeal against the nomination refusal. Therefore, considering that the final result of my
    nomination refusal has not yet been decided as a result of my appeal to the Federal Court, I am hereby requesting the AAT for deferral of the decision on my appeal regarding my subclass 186 visa refusal.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mingqun WANG’

20. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s submission of 2 July 2020 does not provide evidence that he is subject of an approved nomination.

21. At the hearing on 14 May 2020, the Tribunal told the applicant that a visa cannot be granted unless the relevant criteria specified in the Migration Act and Migration Regulations are satisfied and that in his case, his visa application is required to be subject to an approved nomination. In this instance there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant is subject of a nomination that has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn.

22. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the nomination application associated with the position was not approved. Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl.186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

23. As the applicant does not meet an essential criterion for the grant of a subclass 186 visa, cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations is not met.

24. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s submission to have the decision on his review application deferred pending the lodgement and outcome of a judicial review. Section 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) directs that in carrying out its functions; the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. Placing an applicant’s review on hold pending the lodgement and outcome of a judicial review does not achieve the objective of the functions of the Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore will not defer this matter indefinitely whilst the applicant lodges and awaits the outcome of the judicial review in regard to the associated nomination matter.

25. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition 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 Temporary Residence Transition stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

26. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa.

    Karen McNamara
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A

    186.223(1)     The position to which the application relates is the position:

    (a)nominated in an application for approval that seeks to meet the requirements of subregulation 5.19(3); and

    (b)in relation to which the applicant is identified as the holder of a Subclass 457 … visa; and

    (c)in relation to which the declaration mentioned in paragraph 1114B(3)(d) of Schedule 1 was made in the application for the grant of the visa.

    (2)     The Minister has approved the nomination.

    (3)     The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

    (3A)    Either:

    (a)there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person associated with that person; or

    (b)it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person associated with that person.

    (4)     The position is still available to the applicant.

    (5)     The application for the visa is made no more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination.