Douglas (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) regarding a decision to refuse a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The applicant's representative had indicated that the applicant was content for the Tribunal to proceed to a decision on the papers, acknowledging that there was no approved nomination in place.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This subclause mandates that an applicant must have an approved nomination of an occupation by a standard business sponsor, which has not ceased. The Tribunal was required to determine if such an approved nomination existed at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination lodged by AUSTRALIA HERE WE COME in respect of the applicant had been refused by the department on 28 July 2017, and no information had been provided to suggest a subsequent approved nomination. The applicant's representative had also explicitly stated that there was no approved nomination, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) were not met. As no claims were made regarding other streams within cl.457.223, and no evidence was presented to suggest the applicant could satisfy those criteria, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.