Ahmed (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Ahmed against a decision to affirm the refusal of his Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Temporary Residence Transition stream for the occupation of Pastry Cook. The sponsoring company had withdrawn its nomination for Mr. Ahmed's visa application.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the requirements of clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994 had been met. This included whether the position to which the application related was the subject of an approved nomination that had not been withdrawn, and whether Mr. Ahmed had been identified in the nomination as the relevant Subclass 457 visa holder.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 186.223(3) of the Regulations mandates that an approved nomination must not have been subsequently withdrawn. Mr. Ahmed acknowledged that he was aware the company had withdrawn its nomination after he refused to pay $22,000 for the nomination. The Tribunal also noted that the nomination had been refused by the Department prior to its withdrawal. Applying the principles from *Singh's* case, which established that a nomination is a "once-off" process, the Tribunal concluded that the essential requirement of an unwithdrawn, approved nomination had not been satisfied.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr. Ahmed had not met the criteria for the Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream.