RAFAY (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)), by the primary applicant, with two other applicants seeking the visa as family unit members. The dispute arose from the refusal to grant the visa, which was affirmed by the Tribunal. The core of the dispute centred on whether the primary applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Regulations, specifically concerning an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the primary visa applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Regulations, which mandates an approved nomination for the occupation by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. This clause is a primary criterion for the grant of the visa. The Tribunal was required to determine if the nomination made by Montage Commercial Furniture Pty Ltd for the position of Mechanical Engineer had been approved, and if so, whether that approval remained valid.

The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence before it indicated that the nomination by Montage Commercial Furniture Pty Ltd had been refused by the Department, and this refusal was subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal on 12 August 2021. Consequently, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence of an approved nomination in respect of the applicant. As clause 457.223(4)(a) was not met, the primary criteria for the visa were not satisfied. The Tribunal also noted that as the primary applicant did not satisfy the criteria, the secondary applicants, who sought the visa as members of the family unit, also failed to meet the requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants, concluding that the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream had not been met.