Appeals re Employer nomination/sponsorship
Below is the extract from the AAT Review
In this edition, we focus on how the AAT reviews visa decisions involving people who want to work in Australia or businesses who want to employ migrants. These types of visa decision reviews make up a significant portion of our overall caseload. In this financial year to 31 March 2019, we received 8,438 applications for review of these decisions, representing 19% of the AAT’s overall caseload.
The most common types of decisions the AAT reviews in these case categories are:
decisions refusing to approve an employer’s application to be a sponsor, prior to them being able to nominate an individual
decisions refusing to approve an employer’s nomination of a migrant to fill a particular position
decisions refusing to grant a migrant’s visa application for the nominated position
When reviewing these decisions the AAT must consider whether the applicant has met certain requirements. The requirements are numerous and depend on the type of review. We have summarised three of our recent decisions of these types to highlight common issues and to show how the AAT makes decisions in these cases.
CHOI (Migration) [2019] AATA 275
The AAT affirmed the Department of Home Affairs’ decision to refuse to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) Subclass 186 visa. The primary issue was whether the applicant satisfied the requirement to have vocational English.
KRISHNA KANT PTY LTD ATF THE TRUSTEE FOR THE DNP TRUST (Migration) [2019] AATA 304
The AAT set aside the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's decision to refuse approval of the applicant's nomination of a Café or Restaurant Manager position for one of their restaurants. The AAT found the applicant satisfied all the requirements for approval of the nomination.
V D NGUYEN & T T HOANG (Migration) [2019] AATA 293
The AAT affirmed the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's decision to refuse approval of the applicant's nomination of a baker for a subclass 457 visa. The primary issue was about the requirement that the terms and conditions of employment of a nominee are no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an equivalent Australian citizen worker.