Corrado (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cth) considered an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457, made by the primary applicant, Corrado, and a secondary applicant as a member of the family unit. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the primary applicant met the eligibility requirements for the visa, specifically concerning an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the primary applicant satisfied clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates an approved nomination of an occupation by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. The Tribunal also needed to consider the eligibility of the secondary applicant, who relied on the primary applicant meeting the visa criteria. Furthermore, the applicants requested the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to refer their case to the Minister for potential intervention under section 351 of the Migration Act 1958, citing strong compassionate circumstances.

The Tribunal reasoned that the primary applicant failed to meet the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) because the nomination application made by the nominator was refused, and a subsequent review of that refusal was also affirmed. As the Subclass 457 visa class had been repealed and closed to new applications, there was no prospect of lodging a new application or having a pending nomination considered. Consequently, the primary applicant did not have a current approved or pending nomination. The Tribunal found that the secondary applicant's claim also failed as it was contingent on the primary applicant meeting the visa criteria. While the Tribunal considered the request for referral to the Minister, it noted that this power is non-compellable and rests solely with the Minister.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants. However, the Tribunal indicated it would refer the matter to the Department, likely in relation to the applicants' request for Ministerial intervention, despite not having a statutory obligation or power to make a binding recommendation.