Prajapati (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review by the applicant of the Department's decision to refuse him a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457. The applicant had lodged a secondary application for this visa, relying on his wife or partner as the primary applicant. However, the primary applicant had withdrawn her initial Subclass 457 application with one employer, and a subsequent application with a different employer was refused. The review was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 457.321 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires that an applicant for a Subclass 457 visa, when applying as a secondary applicant, must be a member of the family unit of a primary applicant who holds, or has satisfied the primary criteria for, a Subclass 457 visa. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant himself was the subject of an approved nomination.

The Tribunal reasoned that there was no evidence before it to establish that the applicant was a member of the family unit of a primary applicant who held a Subclass 457 visa or had satisfied the primary criteria for one. Furthermore, there was no information indicating that the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination in his own right. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the applicable criteria for the grant of a Subclass 457 visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Department not to grant the applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457.