FATFAT (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the decisions to refuse subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visas to the primary applicant, FATFAT, and five other named applicants. The dispute centred on whether the primary applicant met the requirements for a subclass 457 visa, specifically concerning an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the primary applicant satisfied clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that an approved nomination for the applicant's occupation must not have ceased. This involved examining the duration of the nomination approval under regulation 2.75(2) and whether the primary applicant had a valid, un-ceased nomination at the time of the decision. The Tribunal also considered whether the secondary applicants met the criteria to be included as family members on the primary applicant's visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination for the primary applicant's position as a Bricklayer, approved on 7 November 2016, ceased 12 months after its approval, on 7 November 2017, pursuant to regulation 2.75(2)(b). As no evidence of a subsequent approved nomination was provided, and legislative amendments prevented the obtaining of a new nomination that would satisfy the requirements, the Tribunal found that clause 457.223(4)(a) was not met. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the primary applicant a subclass 457 visa.

The Tribunal also affirmed the decisions to refuse the other applicants their subclass 457 visas, as there was no evidence that they met the secondary criteria as family members of the primary applicant, nor that they met the primary visa criteria in their own right.