Kaur (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of the applicants, who sought Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas, Subclass 187, under the Direct Entry stream for a Café or Restaurant Manager position. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicants met the requirements for this visa subclass, specifically concerning the nomination of the position.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first-named applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233(3) of the Migration Regulations, which mandates that the position be the subject of an approved nomination. This clause further requires that the nominator be the prospective employer, that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination approval. The Tribunal also had to consider the eligibility of the second and third-named applicants, who were seeking the visa as secondary applicants.

The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence established that the nomination application lodged by Pariyani Enterprise Pty Ltd had been refused on 19 May 2017, and subsequently, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to review this refusal because the entity was deregistered. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no approved nomination for the position. As a result, the first-named applicant failed to satisfy the primary criteria for the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. Furthermore, the second and third-named applicants did not meet the secondary criteria as family members of a Subclass 187 visa holder, nor did they satisfy the primary criteria in their own right.

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