Gaddu (Migration)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 Temporary Residence Transition stream. The employer, who made the nomination, did not appear at the hearing or submit any evidence. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was therefore required to determine whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria for the visa.

The primary legal issue was whether the employer's nomination met the requirements of the Migration Regulations 1994, particularly subregulation 5.19(3), and whether the position remained available to the applicant. The Tribunal considered the provisions of regulation 186.223, which stipulate that the Minister must have approved the nomination, that the nomination must not have been withdrawn, that there must be no adverse information known to Immigration (or such information must be disregarded), and that the position must still be available to the applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that as the employer had not appeared or provided any evidence, it was impossible to establish that the nomination had been approved by the Minister, that it had not been withdrawn, or that the position remained available to the applicant. Without these essential elements being proven, the applicant could not satisfy the criteria for the Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.