Chen (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa, specifically under the standard business sponsor stream. The primary applicant sought to have the decision not to grant the visa reviewed by the Tribunal. The secondary applicants, who were members of the family unit, also did not meet the criteria for the visa. The Tribunal, presided over by Member Karen Synon, was tasked with determining whether the decision to refuse the visa should be affirmed.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the primary visa applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that there must be an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor, and that this approval must not have ceased. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the secondary applicants met the criteria for being members of the family unit of a primary applicant who had satisfied the visa requirements.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Department's files contained no record of an approved nomination for the primary applicant by a standard business sponsor. Consequently, the requirement under clause 457.223(4)(a) was not met. Furthermore, the secondary applicants failed to satisfy the secondary criteria, specifically clause 457.321, which requires them to be members of the family unit of a primary applicant who has met the primary criteria and holds a Subclass 457 visa. There was also no evidence that the secondary applicants could qualify as primary applicants themselves. As no claims were made regarding other visa streams and no evidence was presented to suggest the applicant could meet their specific criteria, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream were not satisfied.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants.