Zhang (Migration)

[2021] AATA 2178

Zhang (Migration) [2021] AATA 2178 (25 May 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Feichao Zhang
Ms Dandan Cao

CASE NUMBER:  1819293

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/924651

MEMBER:Sean Baker

DATE:25 May 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criterion for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

·cl 186.223of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 25 May 2021 at 2:52pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) Visa – Subclass 186 – Temporary Residence Transition stream – Cafe or Restaurant Manager –tribunal set aside nomination decision–nomination approved –subject of an approved nomination – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360

Migration Regulations 1994, rr 1.13, 5.19, Schedule 2, cl 186.223

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 Home Affairs on 15 June 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 26 February 2018. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).

3. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 186 visa are set out in Part 186 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.

4. In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of ‘Cafe or Restaurant Manager 141111’.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination had been refused to the applicant’s nominator.

6. In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the visa applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s.360(2)(a) of the Act.

7. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in the present case is whether the nomination has been approved

   Nomination of a position

10. 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.

11. 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 reg 1.13A and reg 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.

12. I have had the benefit of speaking with the representative of the nominator in the related nomination refusal review (Tribunal file 1815573). That review resulted in me setting aside the refusal of the nomination and approving the nomination by YUXIANG PTY LIMITED of the Nominee, Mr Zhang on 25 May 2021.

13. As a result of that review therefore, the nomination has been approved and has not been withdrawn.

14. I do not have before me any information to demonstrate or indicate that there is ‘adverse information’ known to Immigration about the person who made the nomination or a person ‘associated with’ that person (within the meaning of reg 1.13A and reg 1.13B) and I find there is no such adverse information known to Immigration on what is before me.

15. The representative of the nominator confirmed that the position was still available to the applicant and I accept this and find that the position is still available to the applicant.

16. The visa application was not made more than six months after the nomination of the position was approved.

17. Therefore, cl 186.223 is met.

18. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

19. If the primary visa applicant’s visa is approved, the Department may determine whether the secondary applicant is a member of his family unit and grant accordingly.

    DECISION

20. The Tribunal remits the applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criterion for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:

    ·cl 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Sean Baker
    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.