Majeed (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicants against the refusal of their Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas, specifically under the Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme, Direct Entry stream. The core of the dispute revolved around the nomination application for the position of Web Developer, which had been refused by the delegate. A subsequent nomination application was lodged by the same prospective employer while the review proceedings were ongoing.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether it was obligated to postpone its decision-making process pending the outcome of the new nomination application. This involved considering the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa, particularly those relating to the nominated position, and whether the applicants could meet these criteria in light of the pending nomination. The Tribunal also had to assess the appropriateness of granting further adjournments in the circumstances.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the requirements of clause 186.233 of the Regulations, which outlines the conditions for a nominated position. The Tribunal noted that the original nomination had not been approved. While acknowledging the applicants' request for an adjournment to await a decision on the new nomination, the Tribunal drew upon the principles established in *Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs* [2002] FCA 617. In that case, the Federal Court held that a tribunal was not obliged to delay its decision on a visa application review until a fresh nomination application was determined. The Tribunal concluded that it was sufficient to review the decision concerning the nomination at an appropriate time, and that it was not required to postpone its decision in the current matter.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision not to grant the second, third, and fourth applicants a Subclass 186 visa, as they did not meet the secondary criteria as family members, nor had they demonstrated they met the primary criteria in their own right.