Rudra (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision to refuse to grant Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas to the applicants. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicants met the criteria under clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding the approval of a nomination for a position in regional Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the nominated position met the requirements of the relevant regulations, including whether the nomination had been approved by the Minister, had not been withdrawn, and if the position remained available to the applicant. The Tribunal also had to consider whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration concerning the nominator or associated persons, and if such information could be disregarded. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to assess if the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the nominator's application for approval of the nomination had been refused by the Department. As the nomination had not been approved, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants could not satisfy the criteria in clause 187.233(3). The Tribunal relied on the principles articulated in *Singh v MIBP* [2017] FCAFC 105, which emphasised that the visa application is assessed against a specific, approved employer nomination, and that this process is intended to be a "once off" verification. The Tribunal also affirmed the refusal of visas for secondary applicants, as they were not members of a family unit of a primary visa holder and had not met the primary criteria themselves.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.