LEANNE MAREE MIRKIN (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)), brought before the Tribunal by Leanne Maree Mirkin, as the nominator, on behalf of the first visa applicant, with the second and third visa applicants being members of the family unit. The core of the dispute revolved around the refusal of the nomination for the first visa applicant for the occupation of Contract Administrator (ANZSCO 511111).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the first visa applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the necessity of an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor. Furthermore, the Tribunal needed to assess whether the second and third visa applicants, as secondary applicants, satisfied the criteria for being members of the family unit of a primary applicant who had met the requirements for a Subclass 457 visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 457.223(4)(a) mandates that a nomination for an occupation must have been approved under section 140GB of the Migration Act 1958, made by a standard business sponsor, and that such approval must not have ceased. In this instance, the Tribunal found that the nomination for the first visa applicant had not been approved. Consequently, the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) were not met. Applying this finding, the Tribunal concluded that since the first visa applicant had not met the criteria for a Subclass 457 visa, the second and third visa applicants, who relied on being family members of a primary applicant holding or eligible for such a visa, also failed to satisfy the requirements of clause 457.321.

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