Lu (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa (Subclass 187) in the Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to have affirmed a decision that refused to grant the visa. The core of the dispute revolved around the approval of a nomination for the applicant's position.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 187 visa, specifically clause 187.233, which necessitates that the position be the subject of an approved nomination. This involved considering whether the nominator, Cell Link Pty Ltd, had an approved nomination and whether the applicant had met the subsequent procedural requirements following the refusal of that nomination.

The Tribunal noted that the delegate had refused the nomination application lodged by Cell Link Pty Ltd on 19 August 2016, concluding that the applicant did not meet clause 187.233(3) as the nomination had not been approved. Cell Link Pty Ltd sought review of this refusal. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination on 31 August 2018. Subsequently, the Tribunal notified the applicant that affirming the nomination refusal meant the applicant would not meet the requirement of an approved nomination and invited comments. The applicant failed to respond to this invitation.

As the applicant had not met the essential criterion of having an approved nomination, and had not provided any response to the Tribunal's invitation to comment on the implications of the nomination refusal, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for the visa in the Direct Entry stream.