Kaur (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Ms Kaur, who sought review of the Department of Home Affairs' decision to refuse her application for a Subclass 187 Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa. The dispute centred on whether Ms Kaur met the criteria for the visa, specifically concerning the nomination of her employment position.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Kaur satisfied clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which outlines the requirements for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. This clause mandates, among other things, that the nominated position must be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination that has not been withdrawn, and that the applicant must have applied for the visa within six months of the nomination's approval. A key aspect of the dispute was whether a subsequent nomination could satisfy this requirement, or if it had to be the original nomination.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 187.233 required the position to be the subject of an approved nomination and that this requirement could not be satisfied by a later nomination, even if made by the same employer. The Department had refused to approve the nomination by 5 RIVERS PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, and this decision was not subject to review by the Tribunal. As the applicant had not satisfied the fundamental requirement of an approved nomination for the position in relation to which the visa application was made, the Tribunal concluded that the criteria for the visa could not be met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision not to grant Ms Kaur the Subclass 187 visa.