Jun (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) temporary residence transition stream. The applicant, a massage therapist, was nominated by Catsbeauty Pty Ltd. The core dispute revolved around whether the nomination for the applicant's position had been approved, a prerequisite for the visa. The decision was made by Senior Member R. Skaros of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically subclause (2) which requires that the Minister has approved the nomination. This criterion is linked to the requirement that the position nominated must be the subject of an approved nomination that identifies the visa applicant and was made in relation to a Temporary Residence Transition stream visa application.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's nomination by Catsbeauty Pty Ltd for the position of Massage Therapist had initially been refused by the Department. However, the employer subsequently applied for a review of this refusal. On 25 May 2023, the Tribunal set aside the Department's refusal decision and substituted an approval of the nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirement under clause 186.223(2) was now satisfied. Given this finding, the Tribunal determined that the appropriate course of action was to remit the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining visa criteria.