Grewal (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Mr. Grewal, who sought review of a decision not to grant him a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The dispute centred on whether Mr. Grewal met the requirements for a standard business sponsorship, specifically clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor that had not ceased. The Tribunal was required to determine if the withdrawal of the nominator's application for approval of the nomination, and the subsequent lack of an approved nomination, meant that the applicant could not satisfy this crucial visa requirement.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 457.223(4)(a) explicitly requires an approved nomination that has not ceased. In this instance, the nominator's application for nomination approval was refused, and the subsequent review application was withdrawn by the nominator before any approval was granted. Despite the applicant's request for more time to find a new employer due to the impact of COVID-19, he was unable to provide evidence of any efforts made to secure alternative employment or sponsorship. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream were not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr. Grewal the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457, as the essential criterion of an approved nomination was not satisfied.