Irmano (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)), made by the applicant and a secondary applicant. The dispute centred on whether the applicants met the criteria for the visa, particularly in light of legislative changes and the status of a nominated occupation.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which mandates an approved nomination of an occupation by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. A further issue arose concerning the secondary applicant's eligibility, specifically whether she was a member of the family unit of a person who satisfied the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 457 visa, as required by clause 457.321.

The Tribunal reasoned that while a nomination had been approved on 9 August 2016, this approval ceased on 9 August 2017, pursuant to regulation 2.72(5)(b). Subsequent amendments to the regulations in March 2018 repealed and replaced the criteria for Subclass 457 visa nominations, and the visa itself was closed to new applications. Despite the applicants' submissions regarding a new nomination application and their personal circumstances, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination at the time of the decision. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the first-named applicant did not meet clause 457.223. Given this finding, the Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence that the secondary applicant was a member of the family unit of a person who met the primary criteria for a Subclass 457 visa, meaning she could not satisfy clause 457.321.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas.