Kumar (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that there must be an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor, which has not ceased.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had an approved nomination for the occupation of Cafe or Restaurant Manager by D Company Pty Ltd, and if the applicant had responded to a request for information regarding the absence of such an approved nomination. The Tribunal also needed to consider the impact of the Migration Amendment (Temporary Skill Shortage visa and Complementary Reforms) Regulations 2018, which repealed and replaced the criteria for nominations relating to Subclass 457 visa applicants and closed the visa to new applications.

The Tribunal reasoned that a previous decision had affirmed the refusal to approve the nomination by D Company Pty Ltd. Furthermore, the applicant had failed to provide a response to a letter inviting comment on the lack of an approved nomination. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that following the commencement of the Amending Regulations on 18 March 2018, it was no longer possible to make a nomination in respect of a Subclass 457 visa applicant. Consequently, the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) could not be met. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision regarding secondary applicants, finding they did not meet the criteria as family members of a Subclass 457 visa holder and had not met the primary visa criteria themselves.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas.