Roy (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the refusal of a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream. The applicant, a cook, had her nomination refused, and the Tribunal was required to review this decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had an approved business nomination and satisfied the requirements of clause 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. This clause mandates that an applicant must have an approved business nomination for the visa to be granted.

The Tribunal considered evidence that the nominator's restaurant had closed due to an expired lease, and the nominator intended to re-employ the applicant once her visa was approved. However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant was not currently employed at a restaurant in a regional area, and the circumstances had changed significantly since the initial refusal. The Tribunal had notified the applicant of concerns regarding the lack of an approved business nomination, and the applicant responded by detailing her employment history, training, and the business's difficulties in securing a new lease. Despite the applicant's submissions regarding her hard work, integration into the community, and the emotional impact of a potential return to India, the Tribunal found that the essential criterion of having an approved business nomination had not been met.

Consequently, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187.