Bhatt (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review by the applicants of a decision affirming the refusal of their Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa (Direct Entry stream). The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicants were the subject of an approved nomination for the position of Accountant (General).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for the Subclass 186 visa, specifically clause 186.223, which mandates that the position to which the application relates must be the subject of an approved nomination that has not been withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered the applicants' request for Ministerial Intervention, which was made after their nominator employer, SABCHA P/L, had its nomination approval refused and that refusal was affirmed on review.

The Tribunal explained to the applicants that their nominator's nomination had been refused and affirmed. It then referred to the Guidelines governing Ministerial Intervention, which the applicants' representative had requested the Tribunal seek on their behalf. The first applicant provided a personal statement expressing devastation at the potential outcome, highlighting that they had been encouraged to apply for Subclass 186 visas on the assurance that their costs would be met by their employer. She also indicated they should have applied for a Subclass 189 visa, having received an invitation to do so, and presented a copy of this invitation to the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that clause 186.223 requires an approved nomination, no adverse information concerning the nominator, the continued availability of the position, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination approval.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.