Kaur (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision to refuse an employer nomination under the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) Subclass 187 visa, Direct Entry stream. The applicant, Ms Kaur, sought to have the refusal of her visa application reviewed, which was linked to an employer nomination made by A S Randhawa Holdings Pty Ltd ATF A S Randhawa Investments Trust.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the position to which the visa application relates must be the subject of an approved nomination in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia, and must be the same position identified in the visa application. The clause further stipulates several conditions, including that the nominator must be the prospective employer, the nomination must have been approved and not withdrawn, there must be no adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons (or such information must be disregarded), the position must remain available, and the visa application must be lodged within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the employer nomination. The Tribunal noted that on 23 June 2021, it had affirmed the decision not to grant the employer nomination lodged by A S Randhawa Holdings Pty Ltd. This affirmation meant that the nomination, which was a prerequisite for satisfying clause 187.233(1) and subsequently clause 187.233(3), had not been approved. Consequently, the Tribunal indicated that it might find that the applicant did not meet clause 187.233(3) and would affirm the decision under review. The Tribunal also advised that it might subsequently find that the secondary visa criterion, clause 187.311, was not met, leading to the affirmation of the visa application decision.