Medina (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream. The applicant's nomination was made by Frangipani Gentle Care Group Homes Pty Ltd. The delegate of the Department of Home Affairs had refused the nomination, and subsequently refused the visa application when the applicant did not respond to a natural justice letter regarding the nomination refusal. The applicant sought review of the visa refusal decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the approval of the nomination. The Tribunal was required to determine if the nomination, which had been refused by the Department and not reviewed by the applicant, met the criteria for the visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 187.233(3) explicitly requires that the Minister has approved the nomination. The evidence before the Tribunal indicated that the nomination had been refused by the Department and no review of this refusal had been sought by the applicant. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that a new nomination from another sponsor could not be relied upon for the current visa application, as only the nomination in place at the time of the application could satisfy the criterion, referencing *Kaur v MIBP* [2017] FCCA 564. The Tribunal also noted that it could not extend the applicant's bridging visa to allow her to seek further employment or sponsorship.

Given that the essential requirement of an approved nomination had not been met, and no review of the nomination refusal had been undertaken, the Tribunal concluded that the visa application had no prospect of success. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa.