Kaur (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Ms Kaur, and a second applicant, who applied as a member of her family unit, against the refusal of their Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas, specifically subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) under the Direct Entry stream. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant's nominated position as a Retail Manager met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the nominated position satisfied the criteria set out in clause 187.233, which included that the position be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination, that the employer who made the nomination continues to employ the applicant, that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about 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 needed to consider the implications of a prior decision where the applicant's nomination was initially refused but subsequently approved on review.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's employer, Sindhiz Pty Ltd, had lodged a review application concerning the refusal of its nomination of the applicant. Following this review, the Tribunal had set aside the Department's refusal and substituted a decision to approve the nomination. Based on this, the Tribunal was satisfied that the employer had made the nomination, continued to employ the applicant, the nomination was approved and not withdrawn, there was no adverse information or it was reasonable to disregard it, the position remained available, and the visa application was made within the prescribed timeframe. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that clause 187.233 was met.

Given these findings, the Tribunal remitted the visa applications to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining visa criteria. The outcome of the second applicant's visa application, made as a family unit member, was made contingent on the outcome of the primary applicant's application upon remittal.