Chandra (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa, subclass 186, under the Direct Entry stream, made by Ms Arti Esha Chandra. The dispute arose when the nomination lodged by LRR Investment Australia Pty Ltd, the prospective employer, was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. LRR Investment Australia Pty Ltd sought review of this refusal, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether to affirm or set aside the delegate's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Chandra was the subject of a nomination approved by the Minister under regulation 5.19, as required by clause 186.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause stipulates several conditions for a valid nomination, including that the Minister must have approved it and that it must not have been subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria for the grant of the visa, which is contingent upon a valid and approved nomination.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination. It noted that the nomination lodged by LRR Investment Australia Pty Ltd had been refused by the delegate and that the Tribunal itself had affirmed this refusal on review. Crucially, the Tribunal found that no information had been provided by the applicant to demonstrate that she was the subject of an approved nomination under regulation 5.19, as mandated by clause 186.233(3). As this essential criterion was not satisfied, the Tribunal concluded that the criteria for the grant of the subclass 186 visa were not met. Consequently, the Tribunal refused Ms Chandra's application for the visa.