Rimsa (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Rimsa and his family members against the refusal of their Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa, specifically under the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The primary dispute revolved around whether Mr Rimsa met the eligibility criteria for this visa subclass, particularly concerning an approved nomination for the position of Building Associate. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Rimsa satisfied the requirements of clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that the nominated position must have an approved nomination. The Tribunal also considered whether, in light of the refusal to grant the visa, the matter should be referred to the Minister for consideration of exercising discretionary powers under section 351 of the Migration Act 1958, which allows for intervention in cases deemed to be in the public interest due to unique or exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found that Mr Rimsa did not meet the primary criteria for the visa because the nomination application made by his sponsoring company had been refused and had not been reviewed. Consequently, as Mr Rimsa failed to meet the essential requirements for the Temporary Residence Transition stream, his visa application, and those of his family members, were affirmed as refused. However, the Tribunal determined that the case presented unique and exceptional circumstances, citing the significant economic and scientific contributions of Mr Rimsa's employer, Meso Solutions, and Mr Rimsa's integral role in the development of innovative systems. The Tribunal concluded that it was appropriate to refer the matter to the Minister for potential intervention under section 351 of the Act.