HAINES (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning a Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa. The primary applicant was Mr Haines, and the secondary applicant was Ms Eatwell, his partner. The dispute centred on whether Mr Haines met the criteria for the standard business sponsor stream of the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Haines met the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which mandates an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. The Tribunal also needed to consider whether Ms Eatwell met the secondary criteria for the visa, contingent on Mr Haines satisfying the primary criteria.

The Tribunal found that the company sponsoring Mr Haines had withdrawn its review application for the Department's refusal of its nomination application. Despite being notified of this development and invited to comment, the applicants failed to respond. Consequently, as the nomination application had not been approved, Mr Haines did not satisfy the primary criteria under cl.457.223(4)(a). As a result, Ms Eatwell could not satisfy the secondary criteria, which require her to be a member of the family unit of a holder of a Subclass 457 visa who has met the primary criteria. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants.