REN (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision regarding a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa, Direct Entry Stream. The applicant sought to have the decision, which affirmed a refusal of her visa application, set aside. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's eligibility for the visa, specifically whether she met the requirements for her nominated occupation as a Legal Researcher.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the criteria set out in clause 187.234 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the applicant fell within a specified class of persons under IMMI 15/083, or alternatively, met the requirements of clause 187.234(b) or (c). The latter criterion required the applicant to possess the qualifications or experience listed in ANZSCO as necessary for the occupation of a Legal Researcher.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant did not satisfy clause 187.234(a) as she did not hold a Subclass 444 or Subclass 461 visa, nor had she held the nominated position for the required two years. Furthermore, clause 187.234(b) was not met because her qualifications were obtained in Australia, and her occupation was not listed in IMMI 12/096. Critically, under clause 187.234(c), the Tribunal found that the applicant lacked the necessary qualifications or experience for a Legal Researcher as defined by ANZSCO. The applicant held a Master of Business degree majoring in marketing and had limited work experience as a hotel attendant, which did not equate to the Bachelor's degree or five years of relevant experience required for the occupation.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant had not satisfied the relevant visa criteria.