Madduma Patabedige (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457, for an Accountant (General). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the primary visa applicant met the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the grant of the visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the criterion that there be an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor that had not ceased. The Tribunal had previously affirmed a decision not to approve the nomination in a related AAT casefile. The Tribunal put to the applicant that without an approved nomination, he would not meet an essential criterion for the visa grant.

The Tribunal reasoned that cl.457.223(4)(a) mandates an approved nomination as a prerequisite for the grant of a Subclass 457 visa. As there was no evidence of an approved nomination, and the applicant acknowledged this would prevent the visa's success, the Tribunal considered it futile to allow further submissions or hearings, citing the authority of *VARSI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR* [2018] FCCA 1280. The Tribunal concluded that the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream were not met, and no claims were made or evidence provided regarding other streams.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.