RIZAN (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of RIZAN, the first named applicant, and two secondary applicants, concerning their applications for Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visas. The primary dispute revolved around whether the first applicant met the requirements for an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor, which was a prerequisite for the visa grant. The secondary applicants' eligibility was contingent on the first applicant satisfying the primary criteria.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first applicant met the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations, specifically concerning an approved nomination of an occupation by a standard business sponsor that had not ceased. The Tribunal also had to determine if the secondary applicants met the requirements of subclause 457.321, which stipulated they must be members of the family unit of a primary visa applicant who had satisfied the primary criteria and held a Subclass 457 visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination application made by Estate Agents Pty Ltd for the first applicant's nominated position had been refused, and a subsequent review of that refusal by the AAT had been affirmed. Consequently, the nomination had not been approved. The Tribunal noted that it had invited the first applicant to comment on this information, but no response was received. Based on the lack of an approved nomination, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a) were not met. Furthermore, as the first applicant had not met the requirements for the Subclass 457 visa, the secondary applicants could not satisfy the criteria under subclause 457.321.

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