Calero Kaisin (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa, Temporary Residence Transition stream, brought by the first applicant, with the second, third, and fourth applicants seeking to be included as members of his family unit. The core dispute revolved around whether the primary applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically concerning an approved nomination and his eligibility under the relevant migration regulations. The decision was made by Warren Stooke AM.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the first applicant was the subject of an approved nomination and whether the other applicants qualified as his family unit members. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's qualifications, English language proficiency, and employment history, as well as the conduct of his migration agent, whose registration was cancelled due to deceptive and dishonest behaviour. The applicant also claimed to have suffered significant financial loss and a loss of time due to the agent's actions, impacting his ability to meet current application criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. It noted that the applicant stated he did not have an approved nominated sponsor, which is a fundamental requirement for the visa. While the applicant provided evidence of his qualifications as a Maintenance Planner and his English language skills, and a witness testified to his employment with associated entities, these factors did not overcome the absence of an approved nomination. The Tribunal also took into account the cancellation of the migration agent's registration, which highlighted serious professional misconduct that had negatively impacted the applicant's immigration prospects. The applicant's assertion that he met the criteria in 2016 but no longer had the funds for a new application did not alter the current legal requirements.