Yun (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 3814
•27 June 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Yun (Migration) [2019] AATA 3814
[2019] AATA 3814
27 June 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of their visa application.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination that had not been subsequently withdrawn, and if other associated criteria were satisfied.
The Tribunal noted that the nomination application lodged by TopCity Pty Ltd, acting for The McCabe Family Trust, was withdrawn on 5 December 2017. Consequently, the nomination was not approved, and the requirement under cl.187.233(3) was not met. While the applicant provided submissions and evidence suggesting the withdrawal was due to unfair termination and workplace misconduct by the nominating employer, and that an alternative sponsorship opportunity had failed to materialise, these circumstances did not alter the fact that the original nomination was withdrawn. As the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Direct Entry stream and had not met the essential requirement of an approved and un-withdrawn nomination, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination that had not been subsequently withdrawn, and if other associated criteria were satisfied.
The Tribunal noted that the nomination application lodged by TopCity Pty Ltd, acting for The McCabe Family Trust, was withdrawn on 5 December 2017. Consequently, the nomination was not approved, and the requirement under cl.187.233(3) was not met. While the applicant provided submissions and evidence suggesting the withdrawal was due to unfair termination and workplace misconduct by the nominating employer, and that an alternative sponsorship opportunity had failed to materialise, these circumstances did not alter the fact that the original nomination was withdrawn. As the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Direct Entry stream and had not met the essential requirement of an approved and un-withdrawn nomination, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Yun (Migration) [2019] AATA 3814
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0