1500079 (Migration) [2015] AATA 3600 (6 November 2015)

DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:	Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:	Ms Yu-Ting Chu
Mr Craig Leonard Martin Harvey 
CASE NUMBER:	1500079
DIBP REFERENCE(S):	BCC2014/1819001 
MEMBER:	Rania Skaros
DATE:	6 November 2015
PLACE OF DECISION:	Sydney
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 06 November 2015 at 9:37am

1.  	
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 to refuse to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2.  	The applicants applied to the Department of Immigration for the visas on 25 July 2014. 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 (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 Agreement 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 Office Manager. This stream is designed for persons who have never, or have only briefly worked in the Australian labour market and are applying for the visa outside Australia, or are applying from inside Australia but are not eligible for the Temporary Residence Transition stream.
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 for the position was not approved. 
6.  	The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent. 
7.  	For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
8.  	The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets cl.187.233(3) which requires that the relevant nomination has been approved.
Nomination of a position
9.  	For applicants in the Direct Entry stream, cl.187.233 requires that the position to which the application relates be the subject of an application for approval of a nominated position under r.5.19(4)(h)(ii) of the Regulations (that is, a Direct Entry nomination in regional Australia), or under r.5.19(4) as it was prior to 1 July 2012 (that is, a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme nomination).  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.
10.  	In addition, this criterion also requires that:
•	the person who will employ the applicant was the nominator in the application for approval
•	the nomination has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn
•	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.
11.  	The applicant was nominated by Pioneer Travel Services Pty Ltd for the position of Office Manager. That nomination was refused by the Department and Pioneer Travel Services applied for review of that decision. 
12.  	On 6 November 2015 the Tribunal set aside the decision to refuse the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination for the position of Office Manager in respect of the applicant.  
13.  	Given the above, the Tribunal finds that the relevant nomination has been approved. 
14.  	The Tribunal accordingly finds that cl.187.233(3) 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.
decision
16.  	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.

Rania Skaros
Member