Mukai (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered the case of an applicant seeking a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. The dispute arose from the refusal to approve a nomination made by Sandford Superstores Pty Ltd ATF The Sandford Investment Trust (the nominator) in respect of the applicant. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause, as applicable, required, among other things, that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, that the nomination be approved and not subsequently withdrawn, and that the visa application be made within six months of the nomination's approval. A key aspect of the assessment was whether the nominator had made a valid nomination that had been approved by the Minister.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 187.233(3) specifically mandates that the Minister must have approved the nomination. In this instance, the nomination made by Sandford Superstores Pty Ltd ATF The Sandford Investment Trust had been refused. Consequently, the applicant could not satisfy clause 187.233(3), and therefore could not meet the overall requirements of clause 187.233. The Tribunal also noted that it had provided the applicant with an opportunity to respond to information that would form the basis of its decision to affirm the refusal, but the applicant failed to provide a response within the prescribed timeframe.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, as the applicant had not met the essential criteria for the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream.