Maramag (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, for a Retail Manager (General) position. The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse their visa application. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant had an approved nominating sponsor and a position in which they were to be engaged.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria under clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to ascertain whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination, located in regional Australia, and identified the applicant. Further, it needed to confirm that the nominator was the intended employer, that the nomination had not been withdrawn, that there was no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remained available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on a prior decision (Case number 1801121) where Freelake Pty Ltd, the proposed nominator, was found not to meet the requirements of subregulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii), leading to the refusal of their nomination. Consequently, the applicant did not have an approved nominating sponsor or position. The Tribunal had provided the applicant with particulars of adverse information and an opportunity to respond, which the applicant failed to do. Given the prior refusal of the nomination, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not satisfy clause 187.233.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas to the applicant and any secondary applicants, as they also did not satisfy the relevant criteria.