Rupinderjot Kaur (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Rupinderjot Kaur against a decision to refuse her Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 Temporary Residence Transition stream. The nominated position was Hairdresser (ANZSCO 391111), with Reet Mann Pty Ltd being the nominator. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominator, Reet Mann Pty Ltd, had an approved standard business sponsor for the nominated position.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to establish that Reet Mann Pty Ltd held an approved standard business sponsor for the nominated Hairdresser position. This determination was crucial as the Department had previously refused the nomination, a decision that had been affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 5 March 2019. The applicant was invited by the Tribunal to provide evidence of an approved nominating sponsor, but failed to do so within the prescribed period.

The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the fact that the nominator's application for the nominated position had been refused by a delegate of the Minister and this decision was affirmed by the AAT. Consequently, the nominator's application for the nominated position had not been approved. The applicant's subsequent submission on 9 April 2019, while providing details of her employment and attempting to explain discrepancies in business records, did not address the fundamental issue of the nominator's lack of an approved sponsorship. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations, which requires the Minister to have approved the nomination.

As the primary applicant had not satisfied the requirements of clause 186.223, the Tribunal found that the secondary applicants also did not meet the requirements of clause 186.311. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.