Murray (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a migration matter involving an applicant seeking an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186, Temporary Residence Transition stream. The core of the dispute revolved around the employer's withdrawal of its nomination for the applicant's position as a Customer Service Manager.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 186 visa, specifically clause 186.223, which mandates that the nominated position must be one for which a declaration was made in the visa application, and that the nomination must have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered whether a new nomination, even for the same position by the same employer, could satisfy the requirements, and whether the applicant met secondary visa criteria as a family unit member.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa. It reasoned that clause 186.223(2) and (3) require an approved nomination that has not been withdrawn. As the applicant's employer had withdrawn its nomination, this criterion could not be met. The Tribunal relied on established case law, including *Hasan v MIBP* and *Singh v MIBP*, which held that a withdrawn nomination cannot be relied upon, and that even a subsequent nomination for the same position would not satisfy the requirement for the declaration made in the original visa application. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the second applicant did not meet the secondary criteria for a Subclass 186 visa as a family unit member, nor had they demonstrated they met the primary criteria in their own right.