Peng (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the applications of the first and fourth named applicants for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The primary dispute concerned whether the applicants met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates an approved and un-ceased nomination by a standard business sponsor. The Tribunal also addressed jurisdictional issues concerning the second, third, and fifth named applicants.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants had a current, approved nomination for a Subclass 457 visa, given that the nomination by Auservices Pty Ltd had been administratively finalised in 2017 and the Subclass 457 program was repealed and replaced by the Subclass 482 visa in March 2018. The applicants argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, or alternatively, that they should be permitted to lodge new applications under the Subclass 482 program due to transactional arrangements.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 457.223(4)(a) requires an approved nomination that has not ceased. It noted that the nomination by Auservices Pty Ltd was administratively finalised and that subsequent nominations were for the Subclass 482 visa, not the repealed Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal found that the applicants had not met the requirements for a standard business sponsor stream, nor had they made claims or provided evidence to satisfy other streams of clause 457.223.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the first and fourth named applicants. The Tribunal also determined that it had no jurisdiction in respect of the applications of the second, third, and fifth named applicants.