Jamso (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Miss Jamso against the refusal of her Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) direct entry stream. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position for which Miss Jamso applied met the requirements of cl 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by Katie Malyon, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Miss Jamso satisfied criterion 186.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination application, whether the nominator was the prospective employer, whether the nomination had been approved and not withdrawn, and whether there was any adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons. Crucially, the Tribunal also had to consider whether the visa application was made within six months of the nomination approval and if the position remained available to the applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that the primary obstacle to Miss Jamso's visa application was the refusal of her employer's nomination application by the Department on 11 March 2022. As the employer did not seek a review of this refusal, there was no approved nomination before the Tribunal. Consequently, the requirement under cl 186.233(3) that the Minister has approved the nomination was not met. The Tribunal noted that Miss Jamso had not provided any documentation or substantive response to the Tribunal's invitation to comment, nor had she sought a right to a hearing. Given that the essential criterion of an approved nomination was not satisfied, the Tribunal concluded that Miss Jamso had not met the requirements for the Subclass 186 visa in the Direct Entry stream.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Miss Jamso an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa.