HAYER (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 Temporary Residence Transition stream. The applicant sought to have a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed, which had previously affirmed a decision to refuse the approval of a nomination made by Meet Enterprises Pty Ltd in respect of the applicant. The Tribunal was presided over by Karen McNamara.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause, in essence, requires that the position nominated must have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, that there be no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available to the applicant, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval. Crucially, the Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination.

The Tribunal reasoned that for the applicant to satisfy clause 186.223, the nomination must have been approved. As the Tribunal had previously affirmed the decision to refuse the approval of the nomination made by Meet Enterprises Pty Ltd, the applicant could not satisfy subclause 186.223(2). Consequently, the applicant did not meet the overall requirements of clause 186.223 for the Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The Tribunal also noted that it had provided the applicant with an opportunity to comment on the information that would form the basis of its decision to affirm the refusal of the nomination.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 186 visa, concluding that the requirements for the Temporary Residence Transition stream had not been met due to the refusal of the nomination.