Gandrath (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, by the first-named applicant, with the second-named applicant seeking a visa as a family member. The dispute centred on whether the applicants met the requirements for the visa, specifically concerning an approved employer nomination. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first-named applicant satisfied the requirements of cl.187.233(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the position to which the visa application relates must be the subject of an approved nomination in the Direct Entry stream, and that the nomination must have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn. Further requirements include that the nominator is the prospective employer, that there is no adverse information known to Immigration, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence before it indicated that the employer nomination lodged by Lordvenk Pty Ltd had been refused on 10 November 2017, and a prior Tribunal decision had determined it lacked jurisdiction to review that refusal. Consequently, the Tribunal found that there was no approved nomination in relation to the first-named applicant's visa application. As this fundamental criterion of cl.187.233(3) was not met, the Tribunal concluded that the first-named applicant did not satisfy the requirements for the visa. The second-named applicant's claim was also dismissed as she did not meet the secondary criteria for a family member and had not demonstrated she met the primary criteria in her own right.

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