Bruno (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered whether a visa applicant met the requirements for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457. The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires an approved nomination of an occupation by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. The Tribunal also considered whether it was futile to allow further submissions given the absence of an approved nomination.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 457.223(4)(a) is an essential criterion for the grant of a Subclass 457 visa. It noted that a previous AAT decision had affirmed the refusal to approve the nomination in relation to the applicant. The Tribunal informed the applicant that the absence of an approved nomination meant she would not meet this essential criterion, and the applicant acknowledged this. Citing *VARSI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR* [2018] FCCA 1280, the Tribunal concluded that it would be futile to return the matter for further submissions as a visa could not be granted without an approved nomination. As no claims were made regarding other visa streams and no evidence suggested the applicant could satisfy those criteria, the Tribunal found the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream were not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.