Igasto (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a matter involving an applicant seeking an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) Direct Entry stream for an ICT Business Analyst position. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination for the position.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for the visa, particularly concerning the approved nomination. This involved assessing whether the nominated position was correctly identified, whether the nominator was the prospective employer, if the nomination had been approved and not withdrawn, and if there was any adverse information known to Immigration concerning the nominator or associated persons. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider if the position remained available to the applicant and if the visa application was lodged within the prescribed timeframe after the nomination approval.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirements of clause 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. It found that the nominator, Customer Crunch Pty Ltd, was indeed the prospective employer and that the nomination had been approved by the Tribunal on 6 November 2019, and had not been withdrawn. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that there was no adverse information known to Immigration regarding the nominator or any associated persons, noting the nominator's status as a standard business sponsor and the applicant's existing visa status.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration. The remittal was made with the direction that the first named applicant met the criteria under cl.186.233(3) of Schedule 2, and the second named applicant met the criteria under cl.186.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, allowing for the assessment of the remaining visa requirements.