Ranjana (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186, under the temporary residence transition stream. The applicants sought review of a decision to refuse their visa applications. The Tribunal, constituted by Member Lilly Mojsin, was required to determine whether the applicants met the relevant criteria for the visa.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominated position met the requirements of clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, and whether the second applicant satisfied the criteria under clause 186.311 as a member of the family unit of the primary applicant. The Tribunal considered the evidence before it, including the fact that the nomination made by Shashi Beauty Salon Pty Ltd for the position of Hairdresser had been refused by the Tribunal on 15 January 2020.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 186.223(1) was not met because the nomination had been refused. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the second applicant did not satisfy clause 186.311(a) as they were not a member of the family unit of a person who held a Subclass 186 visa granted on the basis of satisfying the primary criteria. As the applicants had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the temporary residence transition stream and had failed to meet these requirements, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.