Chavda (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), by Mr Chavda. The primary dispute revolved around whether the Minister, through the Department or the Tribunal, had approved the relevant nomination for the visa application, as required by the Migration Regulations 1994. The delegate had refused the nomination application made by Alliance, the prospective employer.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the requirements of clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations had been met, specifically concerning the approval of the nominated position. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination, that the nominator is the prospective employer, that the nomination has not been withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval. Mr Chavda sought to rely on previous Migration Review Tribunal decisions that remitted matters where an employer nomination was in place at the time of the Tribunal's decision, even if initially refused.

The Tribunal reasoned that the delegate's refusal of Alliance's nomination application meant that the requirement for an approved nomination had not been satisfied. The Tribunal distinguished Mr Chavda's case from the previous MRT decisions, explaining that those decisions had been superseded by the Full Federal Court's decision in *Singh v MIBP* [2017] FCAFCA 105. The Tribunal concluded that as the essential criteria for the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream, particularly the requirement for an approved nomination, had not been met, the decision under review had to be affirmed.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr Chavda the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.