Pasha (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to have the decision of the delegate, made on 27 August 2019, to refuse the visa grant affirmed. The primary issue revolved around the validity of the nomination associated with the applicant's visa application, which had been made by Hospitality Future Pty Ltd.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was an approved nomination in relation to the applicant's visa application. This involved considering whether the nomination application made by Hospitality Future Pty Ltd had been approved, and whether any subsequent review of a refusal to approve that nomination had been successful. The Tribunal also had to consider information, initially presented under a certificate that was deemed invalid, regarding an allegation of payment for employer sponsorship and the genuineness of the nominated position.

The Tribunal reasoned that the core requirement for the visa was an approved nomination, as stipulated by cl 187.233(3) of the Regulations. It was established that the nomination application made by Hospitality Future Pty Ltd had been refused by the delegate on 25 July 2019. Crucially, a subsequent attempt to review this refusal before the Tribunal (differently constituted) was dismissed on 26 November 2019 due to a lack of jurisdiction, as the nominating business had been deregistered and ceased to exist. Consequently, there was no approved nomination and no pending review of the nomination refusal. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was placing no weight on the information contained within the invalid certificate, focusing solely on the lack of an approved nomination.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 187 visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy a mandatory requirement for the visa grant. The Tribunal also noted that while it had considered ministerial guidelines, it had decided not to refer the matter for ministerial intervention, although the applicant retained the right to make such a request directly to the Minister.