Maroof (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme, Temporary Residence Transition stream. The applicant's employer, Triton Courier Services Pty Ltd, had initially had its nomination for the applicant refused. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), with Member Jane Bell presiding.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's nomination met the requirements of clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause outlines several conditions, including that the nominated position must be the subject of an approved nomination that identifies the visa applicant, that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was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 found that while the nomination was not approved at the time of the initial delegate's decision, the Tribunal itself had subsequently set aside the refusal of the nomination and substituted a decision to approve it on 9 October 2019. Based on this, and considering evidence from the nomination review case, the Tribunal was satisfied that all sub-clauses of clause 186.223 were met. Specifically, the employer had made the original nomination, the nomination was now approved and not withdrawn, there was no adverse information, the position remained available, and the visa application was made within the requisite six-month period after the nomination's approval.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant met the criteria under clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Minister was to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.