Kamat (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme). The applicant sought review before the Tribunal after the Department refused his visa application. The central dispute revolved around the applicant's provision of a completed Form 80 for himself and his non-migrating wife.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirement to provide a completed Form 80, as stipulated by regulation 2.03AA(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which was a criterion on which the delegate had refused the visa. The applicant had initially failed to provide the form to the Department within the extended timeframes granted.

The Tribunal, constituted by Phoebe Dunn, found that the applicant had subsequently provided a completed Form 80 for himself and his non-migrating wife, as well as for his children, during the review process. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant now met the criterion under regulation 2.03AA(2)(b). Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application to the Department for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant met this specific criterion for the Subclass 186 visa.