Patel (Migration)

The applicant, an Indian citizen, sought a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under the Temporary Residence Transition Stream to work as a hairdresser. The applicant's employer had lodged a nomination application, which was refused by the Department because it was not satisfied the applicant would be employed full-time for at least two years. The employer did not seek review of this decision. Subsequently, the applicant's visa application was refused on the grounds that she was not the subject of an approved nomination. The applicant then lodged a review application with the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of subregulation 187.223 of the Migration Regulations, specifically whether she was the subject of an approved nomination by the Minister. This subregulation requires, among other things, that the nomination has been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, that the position is located in regional Australia, that the position remains available to the applicant, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's employer's nomination application had been refused and no review of that refusal was sought. Consequently, there was no approved nomination in place at the time of the visa application or the review hearing. The applicant herself acknowledged that she had no current approved nomination and was relying on a nomination lodged by a new employer, which had not yet been determined. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to satisfy the essential requirement of being the subject of an approved nomination as mandated by subregulation 187.223(2).

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