Manjit (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the refusal of Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas, specifically under the Subclass 186 Temporary Residence Transition stream. The primary applicant, Manjit, sought to have the decision to refuse her visa affirmed. The Tribunal also considered the applications of the second and third named applicants, who were seeking to be included as family members.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the primary applicant had satisfied the requirements of clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to the nomination of a position for the Subclass 186 visa. This clause mandates, among other things, that the position must be the subject of an approved nomination that identifies the visa applicant, that the nomination has not been withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the primary applicant had confirmed the absence of an approved nomination and that her former employer's business had closed. Despite the applicant's request to consider her circumstances due to these events being beyond her control, the Tribunal found that these factors were not relevant to the determination of whether the criterion of an approved nomination had been met. As the Tribunal found that clause 186.223 was not satisfied, it affirmed the decision to refuse the primary applicant's visa. Furthermore, the Tribunal affirmed the refusal for the second and third applicants, as they did not meet the secondary criteria for family members and had not demonstrated they could meet the primary criteria independently.