Dousa (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Dousa and Ms Teo against the Department's decision to refuse their applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas, specifically under the Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) Direct Entry stream. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Dousa, the primary applicant, was the subject of an approved nomination as required by the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Dousa met the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa in the Direct Entry stream, specifically whether the nomination for his position as a Cook had been approved and had not been subsequently withdrawn. It also needed to consider whether Ms Teo, as a member of Mr Dousa's family unit, met the criteria for the visa, which was contingent on Mr Dousa meeting the primary criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 186.233(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations mandates that the nomination must be approved and not subsequently withdrawn. In this case, the employer's nomination application was refused by the Department, and no review was sought for that refusal. Consequently, as the nomination had not been approved, Mr Dousa did not meet the essential criterion under cl.186.233(2). Since Mr Dousa failed to meet the primary criteria for the visa, Ms Teo, as a secondary applicant, also did not meet the criteria.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision to refuse the visa applications for both Mr Dousa and Ms Teo.