PRAT CAMPOSANO

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme), specifically under the temporary residence transition stream. The applicant's visa application had been refused because the associated nomination application was initially refused. However, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had previously set aside that refusal and substituted a decision to approve the nomination. The applicant, MBD Capital Pty Ltd, provided evidence to the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met criterion 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This criterion requires, among other things, that the nominated position is the subject of an approved nomination that has not been withdrawn, that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available to the applicant, and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 following its earlier decision to approve the nomination, and based on the evidence provided by MBD Capital Pty Ltd, it was satisfied that criterion 186.223 was met. Specifically, the Tribunal found no relevant adverse information, confirmed the position's availability, and verified that the visa application was lodged within the prescribed six-month timeframe after the nomination approval.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant meets criterion 186.223. The Minister is to consider the remaining criteria for the grant of the visa.