Ramanjeet Singh (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Ramanjeet Singh, who sought review of a decision to refuse to grant him a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa. The primary dispute concerned whether Mr. Singh met the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to the approval of a nomination for a Subclass 457 visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr. Singh had an approved nomination for an occupation by a standard business sponsor that had not ceased. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant had provided evidence of such an approved nomination, and whether it was still possible to obtain such an approval given legislative changes. The Tribunal also considered whether Mr. Singh met the criteria for any other streams within subclause 457.223, although no claims were made in this regard.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 457.223(4)(a) requires an approved nomination that has not ceased. It noted that the Migration Amendment (Temporary Skill Shortage visa and Complementary Reforms) Regulations 2018, which commenced on 18 March 2018, repealed and replaced the criteria for Subclass 457 visa nominations and closed the visa to new applications. Consequently, it is no longer possible to make a new nomination application for a Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal found no evidence before it of an approved nomination for Mr. Singh, nor any evidence of a further relevant nomination application. Given that it is no longer possible to obtain an approved nomination for a Subclass 457 visa, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) were not met and could not be met.

As the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream were not met, and no claims were made or evidence provided to satisfy other streams within clause 457.223, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse to grant the visa to Mr. Singh.