Hoang (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Tribunal of a decision not to grant the applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The applicant sought to rely on the standard business sponsor stream under clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a), which mandates an approved nomination of an occupation by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. The Tribunal was also required to consider whether it had jurisdiction to review the refusal of the nomination itself, or to proceed with assessing other criteria for the visa in the absence of an approved nomination.

The Tribunal reasoned that it lacked jurisdiction to review the previous decisions to refuse the nomination applications, which had been affirmed on the basis that the nominator, DN Diversity Pty Ltd, did not satisfy regulation 2.72(10)(f) as the nominated role was not found to be genuine. The Tribunal found the submissions of the applicant's migration agent, which appeared to seek an assessment of other visa criteria despite the lack of an approved nomination, to be misconceived. The Tribunal concluded that investigating the tasks of the visa applicant was a pointless exercise without an approved nomination. As no approved nomination was in place, and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review its refusal, the Tribunal found that the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) had not been met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, as the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream had not been satisfied. No claims were made, nor was there evidence presented, to suggest the applicant could satisfy the criteria for any other streams under clause 457.223.