Huang (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme), Direct Entry stream, made by Mr Mingyi Huang, with secondary applicants Yurui Huang and Zhijuan Zhou. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the decision to refuse the visa should be affirmed.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant, Mr Huang, had an approved nominating sponsor and a position in which he was to be engaged in employment, as required by clause 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. This clause necessitates that the position be the subject of an approved nomination, that the employer who made the nomination is the one who will employ the applicant, that the nomination has not been withdrawn, that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval. A further issue arose regarding the secondary applicants, who sought to rely on the primary applicant's visa grant.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided evidence demonstrating that he was the subject of a nomination approved by the Minister under regulation 5.19. The Tribunal had previously provided adverse information to the applicant in a related case, Case number 1803128, concerning the nominator, Di Dao Australia Pty Ltd, and had not approved that nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that clause 186.233 was not met. Furthermore, as the secondary applicants were not members of the family unit of a person who held a subclass 186 visa granted on the basis of satisfying the primary criteria, clause 186.311 was also not satisfied.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas to the applicants, as the criteria for the Direct Entry stream had not been met.