Le (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream, for a Hair or Beauty Salon Manager. The applicant sought review of a decision to affirm the refusal of their visa application. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the approval of the nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination as stipulated by cl.187.233. This involved considering whether the nominator, Thi Mong Thuy Le trading as LOTUS NAILS AND BEAUTY, had an approved nomination for the position, whether the applicant was identified in that nomination, and whether the nomination had been approved and not subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also had to consider the relevance of adverse information and the timing of the visa application relative to the nomination approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that a prerequisite for the grant of the visa was an approved nomination for the specified position. In this case, the Department had refused the employer nomination, and this decision was subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal on review. Consequently, the nominator's application for the nominated position had not been approved. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to respond to this information, but no response was provided. Given that the nomination had not been approved, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not satisfy the requirements of cl.187.233.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision not to grant the second, third, and fourth visa applicants (identified as the applicant's husband and children) subclass 187 visas, as they did not meet the secondary criteria for family members and had not demonstrated they met the primary criteria in their own right.