Constantino (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa (Subclass 187) in the Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought review of the decision to refuse her visa application, which was based on a nomination made by Frangipani Gentle Care Group Homes Pty Ltd. The delegate had refused the nomination, and the applicant had not lodged an application for review of that decision. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination associated with the applicant's visa application had been approved, as required by clause 187.233(3). The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had been misled by her nominating employer regarding the status of the nomination and any potential review. The applicant's representative indicated that the employer had claimed a review of the nomination refusal was lodged, but no evidence was provided.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 187.233(3) mandates that the Minister must have approved the nomination. The evidence before the Tribunal indicated that the nomination was refused by the Department on 23 August 2018, and there was no record of a subsequent approval or an application for review by the nominating employer. Despite the applicant's claims of being misled by her employer, the Tribunal found no evidence to support the assertion that the nomination had been approved or that a review had been lodged. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the essential criterion of an approved nomination.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa, finding that the requirements for the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream had not been met.