Gu (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Gu for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of his visa application. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Gu met the requirements of clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination for the position of Accountant, which was central to Mr Gu's visa application, had been approved. Clause 187.233 requires, among other things, that the nomination has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn, and that the visa application was made no more than six months after the nomination was approved. The Tribunal also considered whether there was any adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, and whether the position remained available.

The Tribunal found that the nomination application made by the Company for the position of Accountant had not been approved. It noted that the Department had refused the nomination application on 19 December 2018, and while the Company applied to the Tribunal for review of that refusal, the Tribunal ultimately found it had no jurisdiction in relation to the nomination refusal. Mr Gu failed to provide a response or comment on this information when requested by the Tribunal. Applying the principles from *Singh v MIBP* [2017] FCAFC 105, the Tribunal concluded that as the nomination had not been approved, Mr Gu did not meet the criteria in cl.187.233(3). As Mr Gu had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Direct Entry stream and had not met those requirements, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.