Mamun (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa (Subclass 482) by Mr. Mamun, with secondary applicants also included. The primary dispute revolved around whether Mr. Mamun met the eligibility requirements for the visa, specifically concerning the necessity of an approved nomination from a sponsor. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first applicant, Mr. Mamun, satisfied the requirements of clause 482.212(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This clause mandates that the nomination identified in the visa application must be approved, made by an approved work sponsor at the time of approval, and must not have ceased. The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr. Mamun could demonstrate he possessed such an approved nomination.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr. Mamun himself acknowledged that his nominating sponsor, 17 Church Street Nelson Bay Pty Ltd, had withdrawn its nomination application. Consequently, he could not demonstrate an approved nomination, which was a prerequisite for the visa application to succeed. While Mr. Mamun presented evidence of difficulties with his original sponsor, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his family, and his subsequent employment with the Blazing Stump Hotel, which was in the process of making a new nomination, the Tribunal found it could not consider these factors. The Tribunal's discretion was limited to assessing whether Mr. Mamun had an approved nomination from the original sponsor. As this was not the case, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he met the requirements of clause 482.212(1)(a).

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visas to the applicants. The Tribunal also affirmed the refusal of visas for the secondary applicants, as they did not meet the primary criteria in their own right and were not family members of a Subclass 482 visa holder.