DOSHI (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a review of a decision to refuse a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream, for an ICT Sales Representative. The applicant sought to rely on a nomination made by AVP Solutions Pty Ltd, which had been refused by the Department. The applicant also inquired about the possibility of obtaining a nomination from a different employer to support his review application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically subclause (3) which requires that the nomination has been approved. The Tribunal also had to determine if a new nomination from a different employer could be considered in the review of the original visa application.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 187.233(3) mandates that the nomination must have been approved. It noted that the nomination lodged by AVP Solutions Pty Ltd in relation to the applicant had been refused by the Department. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that, based on established case law, such as *Kaur v MIBP* [2017] FCCA 564, the nomination relied upon to satisfy this criterion must be the one made at the time of the visa application. Consequently, a new nomination from another employer could not be substituted or linked to the original application for the purpose of satisfying the requirement for an approved nomination.

As the applicant's nominated position was not approved, the Tribunal concluded that clause 187.233 was not met. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa to the primary applicant. Furthermore, as the secondary applicant's eligibility for the visa was contingent on the primary applicant meeting the requirements, the Tribunal also affirmed the decision in respect of the secondary applicant.