Kaur (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Subclass 187) visa. The applicant sought to have a nomination approved for a position with Tript Enterprises Pty Ltd. However, the business had been sold, and the applicant had commenced new employment in metropolitan Melbourne, which was not regional Australia. The Tribunal was required to determine whether an approved nomination existed for the applicant's visa application.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant could satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa, specifically clause 187.233, which requires an approved nomination for a position in regional Australia. The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence that the original nominator had sold the business and that she had subsequently found new employment outside of regional Australia. The Tribunal also had to determine if this new employment could be substituted for the original nomination.

The Tribunal reasoned that applications under Subclass 187 are intrinsically linked to the employer's nomination. It explained that new employment cannot be substituted for the original nomination, and that the visa application was specifically for work in regional Australia. As the applicant's new employment was in metropolitan Melbourne, it did not meet the regional requirement. Consequently, the applicant could not satisfy clause 187.233, and the secondary applicants could not satisfy clause 187.311(a).

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