Rizwan (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicants against a decision to refuse them Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas, specifically under the Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) Direct Entry stream. The primary applicant sought to satisfy the criteria for this visa as a Dog Handler or Trainer, with the other applicants seeking to be included as members of his family unit.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the first named applicant was the subject of an approved nomination for the position, and consequently, whether the second and third named applicants met the criteria for the visa as dependants. The core of the dispute revolved around the requirements of clause 186.233 of the Migration Regulations, which outlines the conditions for an approved nomination in the Direct Entry stream.

The Tribunal reasoned that the first named applicant had not met the primary criteria for the Subclass 186 visa because the nomination application made by his prospective employer, Security Force Pty Ltd, had been rejected by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 26 March 2019, a decision affirmed by the Tribunal on 27 July 2020. As the nomination was not approved, the subsequent requirements of clause 186.233, including that the nomination must have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, could not be satisfied. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the first named applicant did not meet the primary criteria for the visa.

Given that the first named applicant had not satisfied the primary criteria, the Tribunal concluded that the second and third named applicants, as members of his family unit, also did not meet the criteria for the visa. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants the visas.