Rizwan (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa, specifically under the Direct Entry stream. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to the nomination of a position. The decision was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the nominated position met the criteria outlined in clause 186.233, including whether the position was the subject of an approved nomination, if the nominator was the prospective employer, if the nomination had been approved and not withdrawn, if there was no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, if the position remained available, and if the visa application was lodged within six months of the nomination's approval. The Tribunal also needed to consider the implications for the applications of the second and third named applicants, who were family members of the primary applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that on 7 September 2020, it had set aside the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination for the occupation of Dog Handler or Trainer and substituted its own decision approving the nomination. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal was satisfied that all sub-clauses of clause 186.233 were met. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the first named applicant met the criteria under clause 186.233 and remitted the applications for reconsideration by the Minister, with the further direction that the second and third named applicants' applications should be reconsidered as family members of a person who had satisfied the primary criteria.