Liyanage (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457, brought before the Tribunal by the applicant, Liyanage. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's eligibility for the visa, specifically whether the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 had been met. The Tribunal, constituted by C. Packer, was tasked with reviewing the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had satisfied the requirement for an approved nomination of an occupation by a standard business sponsor that had not ceased. This involved examining the nature of the nomination applications made by the business, Sisira Real Estate Australia Pty Ltd, and whether they related to the subclass 457 visa program, which had been repealed. The Tribunal also considered whether a request to delay the decision to allow for a new nomination application under a different visa subclass should be granted.

The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination application made by Sisira Real Estate Australia Pty Ltd on 29 October 2019 was for a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (subclass 187) visa, not a subclass 457 visa. Furthermore, a subsequent nomination application for a Temporary Skill Shortage (subclass 482) visa, even if successful, would not satisfy the requirements for a subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal noted that legislative changes meant that nomination applications made after 18 March 2018 were no longer made in relation to subclass 457 visa applicants. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) were not met. The Tribunal also declined the applicant's request for a further delay, as it would not assist in satisfying the subclass 457 visa requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457, finding that the requirements for the standard business sponsorship stream had not been met. No claims were made in respect of other streams, and there was no evidence to suggest the applicant could satisfy their specific criteria.