Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia

You are here: 

JU (Migration) [2020] AATA  2435  (1 April 2020)

Last Updated: 23 July 2020

JU (Migration)  [2020] AATA 2435  (1 April 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT: Ms MIHYUN JU

CASE NUMBER: 1722935

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2016/4201205

MEMBER: Karen McNamara

DATE: 1 April 2020

PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney

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

• cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 1 April 2020 at 1:32pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Temporary Residence Transition stream – position of Interior Designer – nomination approved upon review – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 186.223; rr 1.13, 5.19

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 Immigration and Border Protection (the delegate) on 5 September 2017 to refuse to grant Ms Mihyun Ju (the applicant) an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2. The applicant applied for the visa on 13 December 2016. 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 (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 applicant is seeking the visa in Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Interior Designer (ANZSCO 232511).
5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not meet cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations which required the applicant to be the subject of an approved nomination. The delegate found that the nomination lodged by Mokishide Pty Ltd (the nominator) was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 17 July 2017.
6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 March 2020, to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr Han Hoo Lim (the nominator). The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Korean and English languages.
7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her 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 applicant meets the requirements of cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

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 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.
12. The nominating employer, Mokishide Pty Ltd, applied to the Department of Immigration for approval of a nomination in relation to the position of Interior Designer (ANZSCO 232511). That nomination was refused by the Department and consequently the applicant’s visa application was refused.
13. Mokishide Pty Ltd, applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision not to approve the nomination (AAT Case No.1716795). On 1 April 2020, the Tribunal set aside the Department’s decision and substituted a new decision to approve the nomination under r.5.19(3) of the Regulations.
14. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that:
    • The person who will employ the applicant in the nominated position (that is Mokishide Pty Ltd) is the person who made the nomination.
    • Mokishide Pty Ltd’s, nomination for the position of Interior Designer (ANZSCO 232511) has been approved by the Tribunal and has not been subsequently withdrawn.
    • Having regard to the information on the related Tribunal and Department files in respect of the nomination application, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that there is adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator.
    • The nominator advised at the hearing the position is still available to Ms Mihyun Ju; and
    • The visa application was made on 13 December 2016 and was therefore not made more than six months after the nomination was approved.
15. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal finds that the requirements of cl.186.223 are met.
16. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

DECISION

17. The Tribunal remits the application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa:
    • cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

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.