KHONGMAK (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. The applicant's previous nominations by Faros Bros Pty Ltd had been refused by the Department, and at the time of the review, a third nomination was pending.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant was the subject of a current, approved nomination for the Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal sought information from the applicant regarding any current or pending approved nominations. Despite correspondence from the applicant's representative indicating a review of materials, the Tribunal's check of departmental records revealed that the most recent nomination by Faros Bros Pty Ltd had been refused on 25 September 2017. The Tribunal also noted that no claims had been made regarding other streams within clause 457.223, nor was there evidence the applicant could satisfy those criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 457.223(4)(a) requires an approved nomination, and the evidence before it indicated that all nominations made in respect of the applicant had been refused. Consequently, at the time of the decision, the applicant was not the subject of a current approved nomination, meaning this essential requirement of the standard business sponsor stream was not met. The Tribunal applied the principles of the Migration Regulations, specifically focusing on the necessity of an approved nomination for the visa subclass.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, finding that the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream had not been met.