Geekiyanage (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicants against the decision of the Tribunal to affirm the refusal of their Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas, specifically under the Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) in the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The primary applicant was a hairdresser, and the appeal focused on the requirements of an approved nomination for the position.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, particularly concerning the requirement for an approved nomination for the nominated position. The Tribunal was also required to consider whether the secondary applicants met the criteria to be included as family members of the primary applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, as applicable, stipulated that the nominated position must be the subject of an approved nomination that has not been withdrawn, among other conditions. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal found that the nomination lodged by Deindy Pty Ltd on behalf of the primary applicant had not been approved at the time of the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the primary applicant failed to meet this essential criterion. The Tribunal further found that the second and third applicants did not meet the secondary criteria to be family members of a Subclass 186 visa holder, nor did they meet the primary criteria in their own right.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas to any of the applicants.