Marner (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of the applicants, who sought an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 Temporary Residence Transition stream. The primary dispute centred on whether the applicant met the age and income requirements for this visa subclass, particularly concerning exemptions for individuals over 50 years of age at the time of application. The Tribunal also considered a request for ministerial intervention based on the applicants' contributions to their professions and the local community.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant satisfied clause 186.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to the age requirement for the Temporary Residence Transition stream, and whether the circumstances warranted a referral for ministerial intervention under section 351 of the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant fell within any of the prescribed classes of exempt persons, particularly those who are not required to meet the age limit of 50 years.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant did not meet the criteria for an exempt person under clause 186.221. The applicant confirmed she was not a researcher, scientist, or technical specialist nominated by an Australian scientific government agency, nor a University Lecturer or Faculty Head. Furthermore, she had not been employed by her nominating employer on a Subclass 457 visa for at least four years immediately prior to her application with earnings equivalent to the Fair Work High Income Threshold, nor was she a medical practitioner. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of clause 186.221(a) or (b). As the primary applicant did not meet the criteria, the secondary applicant, who applied as a member of her family unit, also failed to meet the requirements.

Regarding the request for ministerial intervention, the Tribunal acknowledged the considerable commitment and value the applicants demonstrated to their professional workplaces and local communities, as evidenced by numerous letters of support and oral submissions. However, the Tribunal concluded that, based on the information provided, the circumstances were not unique or exceptional enough to warrant a referral for the Minister to exercise his intervention powers. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.