Kaur (Migration)

The applicant, Ms Kaur, sought review of a decision to refuse her Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream. The decision was reviewed by Cathrine Burnett-Wake, a Member of the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was an approved nomination for the position Ms Kaur sought to be nominated for, as required by clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination application made in regional Australia, and that the applicant must be identified in the nomination if made after 1 July 2017. Further requirements include that the nominator must be the prospective employer, the nomination must have been approved and not withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to Immigration, the position must remain available, and the visa application must be made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant conceded the absence of an approved nomination. It was established that the nomination application had been refused by the Department, and a subsequent merits review application lodged with the Tribunal had been withdrawn by the nominator. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that this lack of an approved nomination was a critical failure to meet the visa criteria. Despite the applicant's request for an adjournment to contact the employer, the Tribunal refused, stating that any contact would not alter the outcome given the refusal and withdrawal of the nomination review. The applicant's explanation for not previously contacting the employer, citing being busy with her young family, was not accepted as a reason to adjourn.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Ms Kaur the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa. The Tribunal also affirmed the refusal of subclass 187 visas for the second named applicants, who were family members, as they did not meet the secondary criteria and had not demonstrated they could meet the primary criteria in their own right.