Fayz (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), direct entry stream, by the applicants. The primary applicant sought review of a decision to refuse to grant the visa, while secondary applicants sought review of the decision to affirm the refusal of their visas. The applicants were located in a third country and faced travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to ascertain if the nomination had been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, if there was no adverse information known to the Department of Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, if the position remained available to the applicant, and if the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the secondary applicants were members of the primary applicant's family unit and met the primary criteria in their own right.

The Tribunal reasoned that a critical requirement for the visa grant was an approved nomination for the position. The evidence before the Tribunal indicated that the application for approval of the nominated position of Cook had been refused, and a subsequent appeal to the Tribunal concerning jurisdiction had been unsuccessful. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirement for an approved nomination had not been met. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the secondary applicants did not qualify as members of a family unit of a person holding a Subclass 187 visa, nor had they provided evidence of meeting the primary criteria themselves.

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