MUZAFARUDDIN (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa (Subclass 186) by Mr. Muzafaruddin, with secondary applicants applying as members of his family unit. The core dispute revolved around the approval of the employer's nomination for Mr. Muzafaruddin's visa. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination of the position for the Subclass 186 visa had been approved, as required by clause 186.223(2) of the Migration Regulations. This clause mandates that the Minister must have approved the nomination, and that this approval must not have been subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered whether the primary applicant met the essential criteria for the visa, and by extension, whether the secondary applicants met their respective criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that the employer's nomination, lodged on 25 January 2017, had been refused by the Department on 25 July 2017. Subsequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision not to approve that nomination on 31 May 2018. As the nomination had not been approved, a key requirement of clause 186.223(2) was not met. The Tribunal also noted that the review applicants had failed to provide comments requested under section 359A of the Migration Act, which meant they were not entitled to a hearing before the Tribunal, consistent with the principles in *Hasran v MIAC* [2010] FCAFC 40.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) visas to the applicants, as the primary applicant did not meet the essential requirements for the visa, and there was no evidence to suggest the secondary applicants did.