Parungao (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to have a decision affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), presided over by Member Jade Murphy, which had refused the visa. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity and approval of the nomination for the applicant's proposed position as a Hair or Beauty Salon Manager.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria stipulated in clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the position to which the visa application related was the subject of an approved nomination, if the nominating business was still a viable entity, and if the applicant's employer was the nominator. The Tribunal also considered whether the nomination had been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, whether there was any adverse information concerning the nominator, if the position remained available, and if the visa application was lodged within the prescribed timeframe after nomination approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's employer's nomination application had been refused by the Department, and a subsequent review application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Crucially, the information before the Tribunal indicated that the nomination application had not been approved. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of cl.187.233(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. As the applicant had only sought to meet the criteria for the Direct Entry stream and had not met those requirements, the decision under review was affirmed.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.