Pajjuru (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, subclass 186. The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant the visa. The Tribunal convened a hearing at which the applicant and their migration agent did not wish to raise further matters.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires, among other things, that the position to which the application relates must be the subject of an approved nomination that identifies the visa applicant, and that the nomination has been approved and not subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered the eligibility of other applicants who relied on their status as members of the family unit of the primary applicant.

The Tribunal's reasoning was that, following a previous decision in *Panduss Pty Ltd*, the applicant could not satisfy the requirement that the nomination be approved. Consequently, the applicant failed to meet the criteria under clause 186.223 for the Temporary Residence Transition stream. As the primary applicant could not satisfy the criteria for the visa, the Tribunal determined that the secondary applicants, relying on their family unit status under clause 186.311, also could not satisfy the requirements, as they needed to be a member of the family unit of a person who holds a Subclass 186 visa granted on the basis of satisfying the primary criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.