Huang (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The applicant's sponsoring business, LAT Australia Group Pty Ltd, had its nomination application refused by the Department of Immigration, and this decision was affirmed by the Tribunal on merits review. The applicant subsequently sought to have the visa refusal decision reviewed.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.186.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to the nomination of a position, and whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020(1) as required by cl.186.213(1). Clause 186.233 requires, among other things, that the nominated position be the subject of an approved nomination that has not been withdrawn and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination approval. Public Interest Criterion 4020(1) generally prohibits the grant of a visa if the applicant has provided false or misleading information or a bogus document in relation to the visa application or a previous visa.

The Tribunal found that cl.186.233 could not be met because the nomination application by LAT Australia Group Pty Ltd had not been approved; it had been refused by the Department and this refusal was affirmed on review. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not satisfy PIC 4020(1). The applicant had indicated to the Tribunal that he had been unable to contact his former agent and sponsoring employer, claiming to have suffered financial and psychological damage due to migration fraud, and had hoped the case could be referred to the Minister. However, the Tribunal concluded that, based on the evidence before it, the applicant had not met the requirements of PIC 4020(1).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa.