Maan (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, and secondary applicants. The dispute centred on the applicant's failure to meet the requirements of clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the need for an approved nomination. The decision was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had an approved nomination for the position of ICT Accounts Manager. This required the Tribunal to consider whether the nominated position was located in regional Australia, was the subject of an application for approval of a nomination in the Direct Entry stream, and identified the applicant. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to determine if the nominator was the prospective employer, if the nomination had been approved and not withdrawn, if there was no adverse information concerning the nominator, if the position remained available, and if the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that there was no evidence before it demonstrating an approved nomination. It noted that the applicant's employer's nomination had been refused on 5 December 2022, due to a lack of evidence of Regional Certifying Body approval and the genuineness of the position. Despite being invited to provide comments or responses following this refusal, the applicant failed to do so within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that clause 187.233 was not met. As the primary applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the visa, the secondary applicants, who were family unit members, also failed to meet the requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas to the applicants.