Carey (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Temporary Residence Transition stream for a Hairdresser occupation. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination that met the requirements of clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. A secondary applicant, a family member of the primary applicant, was also involved.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the primary applicant met the criteria under clause 186.223, which necessitates that the nominated position is still available to the applicant, the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, and there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, or that such information can be disregarded. Additionally, the Tribunal needed to consider the application of the secondary applicant.

The Tribunal found that on 15 September 2020, it had decided to approve the nomination by Norman Brown Pty Ltd for the Hairdresser position. Based on the available information, the Tribunal concluded that the nomination had not been withdrawn, no adverse information existed regarding the nominator or associated persons, the position remained available to the applicant, and the visa application was lodged within the prescribed six-month period after the nomination approval. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that clause 186.223 was satisfied for the primary applicant.

The Tribunal remitted the applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration. It directed that the first named applicant met the criteria under clause 186.223 for a Subclass 186 visa. The application by the secondary applicant was also remitted to the Department for consideration of the remaining visa criteria.