Patel (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, by the applicants, Mr. Patel and Mrs. Aratiben Rajan Patel. The dispute arose when the nomination for the position of Program or Project Administrator, which was central to their visa applications, was refused. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with reviewing this refusal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicants met the criteria for the grant of the Subclass 187 visas, specifically focusing on the requirements for an approved nomination under clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This included whether the nominated position was located in regional Australia, whether the nominator was the intended employer, whether the nomination had been approved and not withdrawn, and whether there was any adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons. The Tribunal also considered whether the position remained available and if the visa application was lodged within the prescribed timeframe after nomination approval.

The Tribunal's reasoning centred on the fact that the nomination for the position had been refused. It noted that clause 187.233(3) requires the Minister to have approved the nomination. As the Tribunal had previously affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination in a related AAT case, this essential criterion for the visa grant could not be met. The Tribunal explained to the applicants that without an approved nomination, they could not satisfy the requirements for the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas to the applicants, including Mrs. Aratiben Rajan Patel, as the necessary criteria, particularly the approved nomination, had not been met.