RAO (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, under the direct entry stream. The applicant sought to be employed as a Developer Programmer. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant had met the criteria for this visa subclass, specifically concerning an approved position nomination.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had an approved standard business sponsor for the nominated position of Developer Programmer. This involved assessing whether the nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which, among other things, requires the position to be located in regional Australia, to be the subject of an approved nomination that identifies the applicant, and for the employer to be the nominator. The Tribunal also considered whether the nomination had been approved, not withdrawn, and whether there was any adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to provide evidence of an approved standard business sponsor, despite being invited to do so. The Tribunal noted that clause 187.233 requires the nomination to have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, and that the visa application must be made within six months of the nomination's approval. As the applicant had not responded to the Tribunal's request for information and had not provided evidence of an approved standard business sponsor, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had not met clause 187.233.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant had only sought to satisfy the criteria for the direct entry stream and had not met the essential requirements for this stream, leading to the affirmation of the original decision.