Nahata (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of a visa applicant seeking review of a decision to refuse a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457. The applicant had been nominated by Osia International (Pacific) Pty Ltd, but the Department had not approved this nomination. The applicant, represented by the business, sought review of both the nomination refusal and the visa refusal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had provided evidence to satisfy this criterion, particularly after being notified that the affirmation of the nomination refusal would likely lead to the affirmation of the visa refusal.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 457.223(4)(a) requires the applicant to be the subject of an approved nomination. It noted that the nomination application had not been approved and that the Tribunal had subsequently affirmed the decision not to approve the nomination. Despite being informed of this and invited to respond in writing, the applicant did not provide any evidence demonstrating an approved nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had failed to meet this essential requirement for the standard business sponsor stream.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457, as the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream were not met. No claims were made or evidenced in respect of other streams within clause 457.223.