PRAJAPATI (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Mr Prajapati concerning the cancellation of his Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa (subclass 187). The visa was granted under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme. The cancellation arose because Mr Prajapati's employment with the sponsoring employer ceased, and the employer subsequently offered positions that were not regionally based. Mr Prajapati contended that he made a genuine effort to commence the employment, but family health issues created a compelling need for him to remain in a metropolitan area, which was not compatible with the offered regional positions.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Prajapati had made a genuine effort to commence the employment as required by the visa conditions. It also had to consider whether the circumstances surrounding the cessation of employment and the subsequent offers of alternative positions met the criteria for excusing the non-compliance. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess if the family health issues constituted a compelling and compassionate reason that warranted a departure from the standard visa requirements.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the relevant regulations governing subclass 187 visas. It found that while Mr Prajapati had made some efforts to commence employment, the employer's subsequent offers of non-regionally based positions and the limited nature of the initial training provided did not satisfy the genuine commencement of employment requirement. The Tribunal acknowledged the family health issues but concluded that they did not, in this instance, provide a sufficient basis to override the legislative requirements for the visa, particularly given the employer's inability to offer a suitable regionally based position.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Prajapati's visa.