1600429 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against the decision of a delegate to refuse his application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa. The applicant's sponsor, Alice Food Concepts, was not a standard business sponsor at the time of the initial refusal, meaning the nomination application could not be assessed. The applicant sought to rectify this by providing evidence that the sponsor's standard business sponsorship application was approved in August 2015 and that a nomination application was lodged on 12 May 2016.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the requirement for an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. The Tribunal also considered the potential impact of ongoing monitoring of the sponsor by the Department due to complaints about payment rates and the owner's personal issues.

The Tribunal reasoned that despite the sponsor's subsequent approval as a standard business sponsor and the lodging of a nomination application, the crucial element of an *approved* nomination under section 140GB of the Act had not been met by the close of the extended evidentiary period. The Tribunal noted that the sponsor's nomination application was still pending, potentially delayed by the Department's monitoring of the sponsor. Given the lack of evidence demonstrating an approved nomination, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a) were not satisfied.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.