Kumar (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa, Subclass 187, in the Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to have a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed, which had affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met clause 187.233(3), which stipulates that the Minister must have approved the nomination for the position. This clause, as applicable, required that the position be the subject of an approved nomination application in the Direct Entry stream, located in regional Australia, and that the nomination identify the applicant if made on or after 1 July 2017. Further requirements included that the nominator be the prospective employer, the nomination not be withdrawn, no adverse information be known to Immigration, the position remain available, and the visa application be made within six months of the nomination approval.

The Tribunal noted that it had invited the applicant to comment on information indicating that the employer nomination refusal by Shiv Blessings Pty. Ltd had been affirmed on 6 April 2022, meaning there was no approved employer nomination to satisfy clause 187.233(3). Despite being granted an extension of time, the applicant made no further submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal found that clause 187.233(3) and, by extension, clause 187.233 were not met. As the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Direct Entry stream and had failed to meet these essential requirements, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.