Mehta (Migration) [2020] AATA 5347 (18 December 2020)

Last Updated: 8 January 2021

Mehta (Migration) [2020] AATA 5347 (18 December 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS: Mr Sandeep Kumar Mehta
Mrs Anu Mehta
Master Reyansh Mehta
Miss Mehak Mehta

CASE NUMBER: 1810072

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2016/1765350

MEMBER: Cathrine Burnett-Wake

DATE: 18 December 2020

PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne

DECISION: The Tribunal remits the application for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:

• cl 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

.
Statement made on 18 December 2020 at 2:22pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Café or Restaurant Manager – subject of an approved nomination – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19; Schedule 2, cl 187.233

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 to refuse to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
2. The applicants applied for the visas on 17 May 2016. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).
3. The criteria for a Subclass 187 visa are set out in Part 187 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 two alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, or the Direct Entry stream.
4. In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Cafe or Restaurant Manager with RAGHAVZ ENTERPRISES PTY LTD.
5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the nomination made by RAGHAVZ ENTERPRISES PTY LTD was refused.
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 there is an approved nomination.

Nomination of a position

10. Clause 187.233 as applicable in this case is set out in full in an attachment to this decision. Essentially, it requires that that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia. The position must be the one that was the subject of the declaration made as part of the current visa application. In addition, where the associated nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, it must identify the applicant in relation to the position.
11. In addition, this criterion also requires that:
    • the person who will employ the applicant is the person who made nomination
    • 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. The applicant's nominating employer RAGHAVZ ENTERPRISES PTY LTD, applied to the Department for the approval of the position of Café or Restaurant Manager in respect of the applicant. The Department refused to approve the nomination and the employer applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.
13. On 18 December 2020, the Tribunal set aside the Department's decision and substituted a decision to approve the nomination in respect of the applicant under r.5.19(4).
14. Therefore, cl.187.233 is met.
15. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.
16. The applications of the second, third and fourth named visa applicants are based on being a member of the family unit of the first named visa applicant who meets the primary criteria. As the Tribunal is remitting the application of the first named visa applicant with a finding that he meets the requirements of cl.187.233, the remaining criteria for his application should now be reconsidered, in addition the applications of the second, third and fourth named visa applicants, as members of the family unit of the first named visa applicant, should now also be reconsidered in full.

DECISION

17. The Tribunal remits the applications Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa:
    • cl.187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Cathrine Burnett-Wake
Member

ATTACHMENT A

187.233 (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:

(i) subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii); or

(ii) subregulation 5.19(4) as in force before 1 July 2012; and

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

(2) The person who will employ the applicant is the person who made the nomination.

(3) The Minister has approved the nomination.

(4) The nomination has not subsequently been withdrawn.

(4A) 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.

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

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