Dhindsa (Migration)

This decision concerns an appeal by the applicants against the refusal of their Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas. The primary applicant sought to satisfy the criteria under clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires, among other things, that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, that the nomination be approved and not subsequently withdrawn, and that the position remain available to the applicant. The Department had refused the visa applications because the nomination in respect of the primary applicant had not been approved.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the primary applicant met the criteria under clause 187.233, specifically whether the nomination had been approved and had not been withdrawn, and whether the position to which the visa application related was the one in respect of which the declaration was made. The Tribunal also considered the implications for the secondary applicants if the primary applicant failed to meet the primary criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination made by Walker, Jayson, was not approved by the Department and that the subsequent review application for this nomination was withdrawn by the applicant. Clause 187.233(4) explicitly requires that the nomination has not been subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal noted that this requirement could not be satisfied by a later nomination of a position, citing *Hasan v MIBP* and *Singh v MIBP*. As the primary applicant did not satisfy this essential criterion, he could not meet the primary criteria for the visa. Consequently, the secondary applicants, who relied on the primary applicant satisfying the primary criteria, also failed to meet their criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.