Paramdeep Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Paramdeep Singh, and secondary applicants Mrs Pardeep Kaur and Master Manraj Singh Virdi, against a decision to refuse their applications for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Temporary Residence Transition stream). The primary applicant, Mr Singh, sought to satisfy the primary criteria for the visa, while the secondary applicants sought to satisfy clause 186.311 as members of his family unit. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether the applicants met the relevant criteria for the visa grant.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the primary applicant, Mr Singh, met clause 186.223(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires that the employer nomination be approved and not subsequently withdrawn. A further issue was whether the secondary applicants, Mrs Kaur and Master Virdi, satisfied clause 186.311, which requires them to be members of the family unit of a primary applicant who holds a Subclass 186 visa granted on the basis of satisfying the primary criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that the employer nomination lodged by Om Mahalaxmii Pty Ltd. had been refused by a delegate of the Minister. While an application for review of this refusal was lodged with the Tribunal, it was subsequently withdrawn by the nominator. Consequently, the original refusal decision stood, meaning the employer nomination was not approved. As clause 186.223(2) requires an approved nomination, the primary applicant could not satisfy this criterion. Furthermore, because the primary applicant did not hold a Subclass 186 visa, the secondary applicants could not satisfy clause 186.311, as they were members of the family unit of a person who did not hold the required visa.

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