Kong (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal regarding the refusal to grant Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas to the applicants. The primary applicant sought a Subclass 187 visa, and the secondary applicant sought a visa as a member of the primary applicant's family unit.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the primary applicant met the criteria under clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the approval of a nomination for the position. The Tribunal also considered whether the secondary applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa as a family member.

The Tribunal reasoned that the primary applicant could not satisfy clause 187.233 because the nomination application for the position had been refused by the Department and had not been approved. The Tribunal relied on the Full Court of the Federal Court's decision in *Singh v MIBP* [2017] FCAFC 105, which emphasised that the visa scheme requires a specific, approved employer nomination to be in place at the time of the visa application. As the nomination was not approved, the primary applicant failed to meet this essential criterion. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the secondary applicant did not qualify as a family member and had not met the primary criteria in her own right.

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