LIU (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to refuse Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas, Subclass 186, for both a primary and secondary applicant. The dispute centred on whether the primary applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, specifically concerning an approved nomination.

The core legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the primary applicant had satisfied clause 186.223(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires that a nomination for the position has been approved and has not been subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered clause 186.311, which dictates that a secondary applicant can only be granted a visa if the primary applicant satisfies the criteria for the grant of the visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that the primary applicant had failed to provide any information, despite opportunities given by both the Department and the Tribunal, to demonstrate that she had an approved nomination that identified her in the nominated occupation. As clause 186.223(2) was not met, the primary applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the Subclass 186 visa. Consequently, as the primary applicant had not met the visa requirements, the secondary applicant, as a member of the family unit, also failed to satisfy the criteria under clause 186.311.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas to either applicant.