BHATI (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by visa applicants against the refusal to grant them Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas, specifically under the Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) Direct Entry stream. The dispute centred on whether the applicants met the essential criteria for the visa grant, particularly concerning the nomination of a position by an employer. The decision was made by a member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the visa applicants satisfied the criteria for the grant of Subclass 187 visas. This involved assessing whether the nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations, including that the position be located in regional Australia, that the nominator be the prospective employer, that the nomination had been approved and not withdrawn, and that there was no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, or that such information could be disregarded. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicants' claimed spouse met the definition of a member of the family unit for the purpose of the visa grant.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicants did not meet the essential criteria for the Subclass 187 visa. The Tribunal found that the nomination for the position of Restaurant Manager had been refused, and this refusal was affirmed on 12 March 2020. As the approval of the nomination is a prerequisite for satisfying clause 187.233(3), the applicants could not meet this essential criterion. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's claimed spouse did not qualify as a member of the family unit of a primary Subclass 187 visa holder, thus failing to satisfy clause 187.311. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visas.