Rinzin (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)), by the applicant, with a secondary applicant also involved. The dispute arose from the Department's decision not to grant the visa, which was subsequently reviewed by the Tribunal. The core of the issue was whether the applicant met the requirements for the visa, specifically concerning an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the criteria set out in clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that there must be an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor, and that this approval must not have ceased. The Tribunal also considered the implications for the secondary applicant, whose eligibility was contingent on the primary applicant meeting the visa requirements.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a). It noted that a previous review had affirmed the Department's decision not to approve a nomination made by Paramkul Pty Ltd, the proposed nominator. Furthermore, there was no information on the Department's files indicating that the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of a Subclass 457 visa. As the primary criteria were not met, the secondary applicant, who needed to be a family unit member of a primary visa holder, also failed to satisfy the secondary criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants.