MAHATO (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered the case of Mr Mahato and two other applicants seeking Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream of the Subclass 457 visa. The applicants sought to have a decision not to grant them these visas reviewed.

The central legal question for the Tribunal was whether the applicants satisfied the criteria set out in subclause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This subclause requires, among other things, that a nomination of an occupation in relation to the applicant has been approved by a standard business sponsor and that this approval has not ceased. The Tribunal also considered whether the second and third named applicants met the requirements of cl.457.321, which relates to members of a family unit.

The Tribunal found that the nominator, IGA St Ives Pty Ltd, had not obtained an approved nomination for the applicant in the position of Accountant (General). As an approved nomination is a mandatory requirement under cl.457.223(4)(a), the Tribunal concluded that this criterion was not met. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicants had not satisfied the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream. Given that the primary applicant did not meet the visa requirements, the Tribunal also found that the other applicants, as members of the family unit, did not satisfy the relevant criteria. The Tribunal affirmed the original decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants.