COSTA BATISTA (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Tribunal of a decision not to grant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)), to a visa applicant for the occupation of Solid Plasterer. The Tribunal was required to consider whether the visa applicant met the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant had an approved nomination for the occupation of Solid Plasterer, as required by clause 457.223(4)(a)(i). This subclause mandates that a nomination of an occupation in relation to the applicant must have been approved under section 140GB of the Migration Act 1958, made by a standard business sponsor, and the approval must not have ceased.

The Tribunal reasoned that on 30 June 2020, it had affirmed a decision by the Department of Home Affairs not to approve the nomination for the visa applicant's position as a solid plasterer. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination. As the review of the nomination refusal had been completed and affirmed, and no information was presented indicating any other pending or under-review nomination application, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) were not met. The Tribunal further noted that no claims had been made regarding other streams within clause 457.223, and there was no evidence to suggest the applicant could satisfy those criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.