Beresford (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186, Direct Entry stream, by an applicant seeking to work as an Agricultural Consultant/Animal Welfare Consultant. The second applicant sought the visa as a member of the applicant's family unit. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the nomination of a position. For applicants in the Direct Entry stream, this clause requires that the position be the subject of an approved application for a nominated position under the relevant regulations.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Department had refused the relevant nomination application, and this refusal had been affirmed by the Tribunal on review. As this was the nomination that was the subject of the declaration at the time the visa application was lodged, and no approved nomination was before the Tribunal, clause 186.233(3) was not met. Consequently, the applicant had failed to satisfy the primary criteria for the visa in the Direct Entry stream. As the primary applicant had not met the criteria, the secondary applicant, as a member of the family unit, also did not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.