Morada (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically the Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme, Temporary Residence Transition stream. The primary applicant sought this visa for the position of Residential Care Officer. The dispute arose because, at the time of the initial decision, the applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the first applicant met criterion 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which outlines the requirements for an approved nomination in the Temporary Residence Transition stream. This criterion necessitates that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available to the applicant, and that the visa application was lodged within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the nomination was initially refused, a subsequent review by the Tribunal had set aside that decision and substituted an approval of the nomination on 5 June 2020. Based on the evidence presented during that review, the Tribunal was satisfied that all sub-clauses of criterion 186.223 were met. Specifically, the nomination was approved and not withdrawn, no adverse information was known or was reasonable to disregard, the position remained available, and the visa application was made within the prescribed six-month period.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration by the Minister. The Tribunal directed that the first applicant met criterion 186.223. The applications of the second, third, and fourth applicants, who applied as members of the first applicant's family unit, were to be determined by reference to the outcome of the first applicant's reconsidered application.