Joy (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457, by the applicant, Mr. Balim, and two other applicants. The dispute arose from the refusal of these visa applications by the Department. The case was heard by Alison Mercer, a member of the Tribunal.

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. The Tribunal also considered whether the second and third named applicants met the criteria for subclass 457 visas, either as primary applicants or as family members.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of an approved nomination for the applicant. It detailed a history of unsuccessful sponsorship and nomination applications made by both Mr. Balim's original employer and a subsequent employer, Helixo Brick Construction Pty Ltd. Despite multiple attempts, including a nomination lodged on 1 September 2017, none had been approved by the Department at the time of the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination and therefore did not satisfy the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a). Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence that the second and third named applicants met the primary or secondary visa criteria for a subclass 457 visa.

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