Cui (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision to refuse to approve a nomination for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457. The primary applicant was nominated by Southland International Group Pty Ltd. The Department had refused to approve Southland's nomination, which led to the refusal of the visa application. The applicant sought review of both the nomination refusal and the visa refusal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the primary visa applicant met the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This subclause 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. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had provided evidence to satisfy this requirement, particularly in light of the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of the nomination.

The Tribunal reasoned that to satisfy subclause 457.223(4)(a), the applicant needed to be the subject of an approved nomination that had not ceased. The Tribunal had previously affirmed the decision not to approve Southland's nomination. Following this, the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on information that would lead to affirming the visa refusal, specifically referencing the lack of an approved nomination. The applicant did not respond to this invitation and provided no evidence to demonstrate an approved nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had failed to meet the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a), and as no claims were made regarding other visa streams, the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream were not met.

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