Gao (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, under the direct entry stream. The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant this visa. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for this visa subclass, specifically concerning the nomination of a position.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was an approved nomination for the position to which the applicant's visa application related. Clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, as applicable, required that the nominated position be the subject of an approved nomination application in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia, and that the nomination identify the applicant. Further requirements included that the nominator be the prospective employer, that the nomination be approved and not subsequently withdrawn, that there be no adverse information known to Immigration, that the position remain available, and that the visa application be made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the nominator's application for approval of the nomination had been withdrawn prior to the delegate making a decision on the visa application. Consequently, there was no approved nomination in place. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had failed to respond to an invitation to comment on this information. Applying the principles from *Singh v MIBP* [2017] FCAFC 105, the Tribunal affirmed that the visa application must be considered against a specific, approved employer nomination. As the nomination had not been approved, the applicant did not meet the criteria under cl.187.233(3).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, as the requirements for the direct entry stream had not been met.