PANDEY (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme), Temporary Residence Transition stream, for an Accountant (General) position. The applicant sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of their visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of the Subclass 186 visa, specifically focusing on the requirements of clause 186.223. This included whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination, whether there was any adverse information concerning the nominator, whether the position remained available, and whether the visa application was made within the prescribed timeframe after nomination approval. A key point of contention was the nominator's financial capacity to pay the nominated salary.

The Tribunal considered evidence presented by both the applicant and the original delegate's decision. The delegate had found that the nominator had not demonstrated adequate financial capability to pay the nominee's salary for at least two years, noting that total salary costs for previous financial years were insufficient to cover the nominee's salary and that of another employee on a similar visa. The applicant provided extensive documentation, including financial reports, tax returns, and employment contracts, to demonstrate the nominator's financial capacity. However, the Tribunal ultimately found that the primary applicant did not meet the visa criteria.

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