Kalia (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against a decision to affirm the refusal of a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, specifically a Subclass 457 Temporary Work (Skilled) visa under the standard business sponsor stream. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's failure to meet the nomination requirements stipulated in clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor, which had not ceased. Specifically, the Tribunal considered the refusal of the nominator's application for approval of the nominated position and the subsequent withdrawal of the nominator's review application, meaning the nomination had not been approved. The applicant sought an extension of time to allow for a new Subclass 482 nomination lodged with the same employer to be processed, arguing that the hospitality industry's post-COVID difficulties necessitated this.

The Tribunal reasoned that while it sympathised with the applicant's and employer's circumstances, the lodgement of a new Subclass 482 nomination was irrelevant to the current Subclass 457 application. Clause 457.223(4)(a) mandates an *approved* nomination for the visa subclass in question. As there was no evidence of an approved nomination for the Subclass 457 visa, the Tribunal concluded that this essential requirement was not met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, finding that the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream had not been satisfied. No claims were made regarding other streams within clause 457.223, and there was no evidence to suggest the applicant could satisfy their criteria.