# 187 nomination refusal based on assumptions



## Cippa (Aug 14, 2017)

Hello,

Just before Christmas, the Immigration department has decided to send me a present: after a wait of 18 months, my nomination has been refused.
The occupation is Retail Manager in a coffee shop (no kitchen, no chef, just reselling of products) in regional WA.

The case officer refused without asking for further information and he based his decision on the assumption that the owner works at the shop (not true) and therefore I am not a manager but only a supervisor as the owner as the final decision on important matters of the business such as product mix, pricing, marketing and budgeting (so he thinks). 

This information does not appear in any document. We were very careful and the organisation chart clearly shows I am the person in charge. My job description is completely in line with all the duties of a retail manager but for some reason, the case officer believes that the owner is present at the shop part-time (can't explain why). My only doubt is that my employer signed all the documentation with the title "director" (it is a company after all with 2 investors) and that might have misled the case officer. Rather than this, we have received no phone calls and no inspections.

My employer has said that he wants to appeal. We have so much evidence already collected that proves he does not cover the above functions but it is only me. That shop was at a loss when I came thanks to the incompetence of the previous manager and in less than a year I made it profitable by implementing a different strategy and a shop transformation. It is so unfair!

Has anyone been in my shoes? What happened with the appeal? Did you have to wait for the hearing or did you resolve the matter before that?

Any information might help to lift my spirit before these holidays!

Merry Christmas!


----------



## CCMS (Oct 10, 2013)

From what I am hearing, nominations for Retail Manager are being refused en masse. In many cases the position is considered to be that of a supervisor, rather than a manager ( not saying that is the case here). I believe the occupation will be removed from the RSMS skills list altogether, I don’t have any personal experience with this particular occupation.


----------



## MarkNortham (Dec 19, 2012)

We're seeing the same thing as Nick - Retail Manager RSMS nominations seem to have been stockpiled for months, and in December large numbers were refused. While the AAT review option may normally make sense, for RSMS (and ENS) there is currently the added issue of how the new regulations to be introduced in March severely limiting occupation eligibility for these visas will take into consideration nominations lodged prior to the changes. Given the construct of the regulations, there is a distinct possibility that, unless specifically grandfathered in, occupations no longer eligible for the RSMS visa may render all undecided applications for those occupations as unable to be granted.


----------



## IkeJP1968 (Dec 23, 2017)

*Against the pessimistic predictions of the immigration's attitudes*

I raise a concern regarding the pessimistic predictions of the immigration's attitudes toward the 187 visa. My argument here is based on the two reasons below;
1. It is no use posting just pessimistic predictions for immigrants without proposing the solutions.
2. Pessimistic forecasts would form a negative public opinion that would lead unfriendly government's actions.

As a immigrant, who was also refused the 187 visa, the information I need here is;
- Other refusal examples 
- How to solve this problem

My basic idea here is, as we live in a democratic and constitutional county, Australia, the significant point is not just to follow the negative reality, but to insist on 'the WAY IT SHOULD BE'. From the perspective of the law principle, the issue here is 'Ex post facto law', which means legalized counties must not apply laws before they are enforced. In this regard, it is illegal to affect the future immigration law from this March to the immigrants who have already applied.

My idea above is not only beneficial for immigrants, but also for Australian citizens. Because the invasion of the right of minorities would affect other citizens. This is the fact that our history has proven again and again

The solutions what I am now thinking about other than the AAT procedure are;
1. Class action against the unlawful government decision
2. Contacting lobbying organisations in Australia that would affect the legislation procedure of immigration laws

However, I do not know how to proceed the solutions above. Therefore, I would like to know 'HOW'.


----------



## Cippa (Aug 14, 2017)

MarkNortham said:


> We're seeing the same thing as Nick - Retail Manager RSMS nominations seem to have been stockpiled for months, and in December large numbers were refused. While the AAT review option may normally make sense, for RSMS (and ENS) there is currently the added issue of how the new regulations to be introduced in March severely limiting occupation eligibility for these visas will take into consideration nominations lodged prior to the changes. Given the construct of the regulations, there is a distinct possibility that, unless specifically grandfathered in, occupations no longer eligible for the RSMS visa may render all undecided applications for those occupations as unable to be granted.


Hi Mark, thanks for your post. I would like to ask you... With the appeal of the nomination refusal based on the fact that the department believes the position is more at the level of a retail supervisor rather than a manager, 
what type of documents do you think are more relevant to support the appeal application? Will letters from colleagues or ex-colleagues, suppliers or customers be as relevant?


----------

