Ninsamak (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) by an applicant seeking an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) Direct Entry stream. The core dispute revolved around the refusal of the applicant's visa application, which stemmed from the delegate's finding that a crucial nomination requirement had not been met.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa in the Direct Entry stream, as set out in clause 186.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the nominated position had been approved and had not been subsequently withdrawn, and whether the visa application was made within the prescribed timeframe after the nomination approval.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that clause 186.233(3) was not met. The delegate's decision record indicated that the nomination application had been refused on 7 December 2016. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence before it to suggest that the nomination application had been approved. Consequently, as the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the Direct Entry stream and had failed to meet the essential requirements, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.