Kiranjeet (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas, specifically under the Subclass 186 Temporary Residence Transition stream. The applicant sought to have a decision affirmed by the Tribunal, which had refused to grant the visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements for an approved nomination for the position of Hair or Beauty Salon Manager.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had met the criteria set out in clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires, among other things, that the position be the subject of an approved nomination application that identifies the visa applicant, that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Department had refused AKY Pty Ltd’s nomination application, and this refusal had been affirmed by the Tribunal. Consequently, as there was no approved nomination, clause 186.223 was not met. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition stream and had not made claims in respect of other visa streams. As the essential requirements for this stream were not met, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.

The Tribunal also affirmed the decision to refuse visas to the second applicant, who was the primary applicant's spouse. This was because the spouse did not meet the secondary criteria as a family unit member of a Subclass 186 visa holder, nor was there evidence they could meet the primary criteria independently. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas to either applicant.