Redondo Caicedo (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a migration matter involving the applicants, who sought Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas, Subclass 186, under the Direct Entry stream. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicants had satisfied the requirement of an approved nomination for the visa.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa in the Direct Entry stream, specifically focusing on clause 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which mandates an approved nomination. The Tribunal also considered clause 186.311 concerning the eligibility of a secondary applicant as a family unit member.

The Tribunal reasoned that for the visa to succeed, the nomination by Ainka@Technology Pty Ltd had to be approved. The nomination application was lodged on 22 March 2018 and subsequently refused by a delegate on 18 September 2018. The applicants' visa applications were then refused on 19 November 2018 due to the lack of an approved nomination. Although Ainka@Technology Pty Ltd sought review of the nomination refusal, the Tribunal affirmed that decision on 8 June 2022. Consequently, there was no approved nomination as required by cl 186.233(3). As the primary applicant did not hold the Subclass 186 visa, the secondary applicant, as a family unit member, also failed to meet cl 186.311.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas, Subclass 186, as the essential criteria, particularly the requirement for an approved nomination, had not been met.