Kamal (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, for a Mechanical Engineering Draftsperson. The applicant sought review of a decision to affirm the refusal of his visa application. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated position met the criteria set out in clause 187.233, specifically concerning the approval of the nomination. This clause requires, among other things, that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, that the nominator be the prospective employer, that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval. The Tribunal also considered whether the secondary applicants, identified as family members, met the relevant criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination application lodged by Proficient Engineering and Maintenance Pty Ltd had not been approved at the time of the Tribunal's decision. While the applicant provided evidence of alleged mistreatment by his previous employer, including unpaid superannuation and wages, the Tribunal found it could not verify this information. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of clause 187.233. The Tribunal also found that the secondary applicants did not meet the criteria for family members of a Subclass 187 visa holder, nor had they demonstrated they met the primary criteria in their own right.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.