Hollywood (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically the Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) Temporary Residence Transition stream, for a solid plasterer. The applicant's visa application was contingent on an approved nomination by All Access Concrete Pumping. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.223 of the relevant regulations, particularly concerning the approval of the employer's nomination. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant satisfied clause 186.223, which outlines the criteria for an approved nomination in the Temporary Residence Transition stream. This clause requires, among other things, that the nominated position is the subject of an approved nomination that identifies the visa applicant, that the nomination has not been withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Department had initially refused the employer's nomination on 12 January 2018, the nominator had applied for a review of this decision. On 13 March 2020, the Tribunal set aside the Department's refusal and substituted a decision approving the nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant now met the requirement of clause 186.223(2) as the relevant nomination had been approved.

The Tribunal's decision was to remit the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa applications for reconsideration. It directed that the first named applicant be considered to meet the criteria under clause 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and that the remaining criteria for both the first and second named applicants should be reconsidered in full.