Gao (Migration)

This decision concerns an applicant for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), under the direct entry stream. The applicant sought to have a decision affirmed, which related to their eligibility for the visa. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of the employer nomination required for this visa subclass.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.233(3) of the Migration Regulations. This clause mandates, among other things, that the position to which the visa application relates must be the subject of an approved nomination, that the nominating employer must be the entity that will employ the applicant, that the nomination must not have been withdrawn and no adverse information should be known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons, and that the position must still be available to the applicant. A critical issue was whether the applicant could proceed without a currently approved employer nomination, particularly given the deregistration of the nominating company.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant could not satisfy clause 187.233(3) because the employer nomination had not been approved. The nominating company, Meayo Pty Ltd, had been deregistered, leading to the Tribunal finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the refusal of the nomination application. The Tribunal noted that, as established in *Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2017] FCAFC 105, a new employer nomination cannot be substituted for a refused one in this type of visa application. Despite the applicant's submission of evidence of their work as a cook and a request for more time, the Tribunal concluded that these points did not address the fundamental legislative requirement of an approved employer nomination.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant did not meet the necessary criteria for the visa due to the absence of an approved employer nomination. This failure also formed the basis for affirming the refusal of the visa applications for any secondary applicants.