1506506 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa. The applicants sought review of a decision not to grant them this visa. The primary applicant's representative submitted that an error had been made in applying for the visa under the Direct Entry stream when the applicant actually met the criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The representative also provided a letter from the Australian Border Force indicating that the applicant's sponsor, CTR Pacific Pty Ltd, had its sponsorship agreement cancelled and was barred from lodging further sponsorship applications for one year.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa under either the Direct Entry stream (specifically cl.187.234) or the Temporary Residence Transition stream (specifically cl.187.223). The Tribunal also considered whether the second applicant satisfied cl.187.311 as a member of the family unit of the primary applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that for the Temporary Residence Transition stream, cl.187.223 requires that the nominated position be approved under subregulation 5.19(3) and that the applicant be identified as a Subclass 457 visa holder in relation to that nomination. The Tribunal found no information before it to suggest that the position had been nominated under subregulation 5.19(3) or that the Minister had approved such a nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The Tribunal also found that the second applicant did not satisfy cl.187.311 as she was not a member of the family unit of a primary applicant who held a Subclass 187 visa granted on the basis of satisfying the primary criteria and made a combined application.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the first and second named applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas. The Tribunal stated it did not have jurisdiction in the matter of the third named applicant.