1602629 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Subclass 457 visa. The applicant, the first named applicant, had his visa application refused because his sponsoring employer’s initial nomination application was refused, meaning he did not meet the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a). The second named applicant, the applicant's wife, also sought review of the decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the first named applicant met the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) of the Regulations, specifically concerning an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor that had not ceased. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider the validity of the second named applicant's application for review, given her presence outside the migration zone at the time of the application.

The Tribunal found that the first named applicant met the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) because a subsequent nomination application made by his sponsoring employer was approved and had not ceased. Regarding the second named applicant, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction as she was not physically present in the migration zone when her review application was made, rendering it invalid under s.347 of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas for reconsideration, directing that the first named applicant met cl.457.223(4)(a), and noted its lack of jurisdiction concerning the second named applicant.