Bogaerdt (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme, Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought a position as a Salon Manager in pet grooming. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met criterion cl.187.233(3), which requires the Minister to have approved the nomination. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the decision of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, which had refused to approve the nomination.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant satisfied clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause outlines several requirements for the nomination, including that the position must be located in regional Australia, the nominating employer must be the prospective employer, the nomination must have been approved and not withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons (or such information must be reasonable to disregard), the position must remain available to the applicant, and the visa application must have been lodged within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met the requirements of cl.187.233. It noted that the nomination was made by Mr. Thomas Dirckx, the owner and director of Fairy Tail Pty Ltd, who also signed the employment contract, confirming he was the prospective employer. The Tribunal was satisfied that the nomination had been approved and not withdrawn, and there was no adverse information concerning Mr. Dirckx. Furthermore, the most recent employment contract demonstrated the position remained available, and the visa application was lodged within the stipulated six-month timeframe after the nomination's approval.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the primary applicant's visa application to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining criteria. The Tribunal also directed that the secondary applicants' visa applications be remitted for reconsideration. The Tribunal specifically found that the first named applicant met the criteria under cl.187.233.