Mertekis (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457. The applicant, Mr. Mertekis, sought review of the visa refusal, while Pavlos Transport Pty Ltd sought review of the refusal of its second nomination application for the occupation of Transport Company Manager. The Tribunal, constituted by Senior Member Miriam Holmes, considered the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a), which mandates an approved nomination of an occupation by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. The Tribunal was required to determine if such an approved nomination existed in relation to the applicant at the time of the visa application refusal. The Tribunal also considered requests from the applicant to postpone or defer its decision pending the outcome of a subsequent nomination application lodged by a different entity, Ohrid Transport Pty Ltd.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the fact that the applicant's initial visa application was made prior to any approved nomination. The first nomination application by Pavlos Transport Pty Ltd was refused on 13 July 2015. A second nomination application by Pavlos Transport Pty Ltd was subsequently refused on 20 August 2015 because the delegate was not satisfied that the nominated position was genuine. Consequently, the visa application was refused on 22 August 2015 on the grounds that the applicant did not hold an approved nomination. Although Pavlos Transport Pty Ltd later withdrew its review application for the nomination refusal, and Ohrid Transport Pty Ltd lodged a new sponsorship and nomination application in March 2017, the Tribunal found that as at the date of the hearing, the applicant was not identified in an approved nomination. The Tribunal declined the requests to postpone or defer its decision, concluding that the requirements for the standard business sponsorship stream had not been met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.