Kaur (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Kaur against the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of her Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457. The primary issue revolved around the requirement for an approved nomination of an occupation under section 140GB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and regulation 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Ms Kaur's prospective employer, Host Wealth Pty Ltd, had its nomination application refused on 24 July 2014, a decision later affirmed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Kaur met the criteria for the subclass 457 visa, specifically whether a nomination of an occupation in relation to her had been approved by a standard business sponsor and had not ceased to have effect. The applicant's representative informed the Tribunal that the initial visa refusal was due to failing regulation 457.223(4)(a). Following a jurisdictional error identified by the Federal Circuit Court, which ordered a writ of certiorari and mandamus, Ms Kaur had attempted to secure new nominations. However, a subsequent nomination was refused due to the business's inability to financially support the nominated position.

The Tribunal reasoned that Ms Kaur had not satisfied the primary criteria for the visa, as there was no approved nomination in place. Despite her attempts to find new nominators and her request for the matter to be held open, the Tribunal noted that she had not yet secured a valid nomination. The Tribunal also highlighted that the second applicant, presumably a family member, did not meet the criteria under cl.457.321 as they were not a member of the family unit of a primary visa holder. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas.