Kaur (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicants against the refusal to grant them Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas, specifically Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visas under the Direct Entry stream. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position met the requirements for the visa, particularly the necessity of an approved nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants satisfied clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which outlines the criteria for a nominated position. This clause mandates that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination, that the employer who made the nomination is the one who will employ the applicant, that the nomination has not been withdrawn, that there is no adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available, and that the visa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 reasoned that the employer's application for approval of the nominated position had been refused by a delegate of the Minister, and this refusal was subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal itself. Consequently, the nomination was not approved. The Tribunal had issued a letter under section 359A of the Migration Act 1958, informing the applicants of this critical fact and inviting them to respond. Despite being granted an extension, the applicants failed to provide a substantive response. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants could not satisfy clause 187.233, and therefore, the primary applicant did not meet the requirements for the visa. The secondary applicant's eligibility was contingent on the primary applicant satisfying the criteria, which they had not.

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