Kaur (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Kaur (Migration), where the applicant sought an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186, under the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The dispute centred on whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination for a hairdresser position by Mystik Hair & Beauty Pty Ltd.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations, specifically concerning the approval of the employer's nomination. This clause mandates that the nominated position must be the subject of an approved nomination that identifies the visa applicant, has not been withdrawn, and for which there is no adverse information known to Immigration, or such information can be disregarded. Additionally, the position must remain available, and the visa application must be lodged within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's prospective employer's nomination was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 12 May 2017, as the company did not meet regulation 5.19. The applicant conceded that her nomination had been refused and that she had no other nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirements of clause 186.223 were not met, as the nomination associated with the applicant's visa application had not been approved. As the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition stream and had failed to meet its essential requirements, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.

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