1514157 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal regarding the refusal of Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas, Subclass 187. The applicant sought to obtain this visa under the Direct Entry stream. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the age requirements stipulated by the relevant legislative instrument at the time of application.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant satisfied the age criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. Specifically, the Tribunal had to ascertain whether the applicant had turned 50 years of age prior to lodging their application, and if any exceptions applied. The applicant's age at the time of application was 50 years, 2 months, and 15 days.

The Tribunal found that under clause 187.231 of the legislative instrument, an applicant in the Direct Entry stream must not have turned 50 years of age at the time of application, unless they fall within a specified class of persons. While the Tribunal accepted that delays in the employer lodging the nomination documents may have contributed to the applicant lodging their own application after turning 50, it noted that the legislation provided no discretion to extend the time for lodging the application. As the applicant had already turned 50 and was not identified as belonging to a specified class exempt from this requirement, they did not meet the age criteria. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa to the applicant and, as a dependent applicant, to the second named applicant.