Bhargava Kumar Munja (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant, Bhargava Kumar Munja, a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream. The Tribunal, constituted by Member Mary Sheargold, was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for this visa subclass.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's nominated position had been approved, as required by clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination, and where the nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017, it must identify the applicant. Further requirements include that the nominator must be the intended employer, the nomination must not have been withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to the Department or such information must be disregarded, the position must remain available, and the visa application must be made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's nominated position did not meet the criteria because the nominator's application for approval of the nomination had been refused by the Department, a decision which the Tribunal had previously affirmed. Consequently, the nomination had not been approved. The Tribunal relied on the principles articulated in *Singh v MIBP* [2017] FCAFC 105, which emphasised that the visa application is assessed against a specific, approved employer nomination. As the nomination was not approved, the applicant could not satisfy clause 187.233(3).

As the applicant failed to meet the essential criteria for the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The applicant was therefore not granted the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.