Sandhu (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a case involving an applicant seeking an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme, Temporary Residence Transition stream. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination for the position of Motor Mechanic (General), as required for the visa. The AAT affirmed the decision of the Department of Immigration to refuse the nomination.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria under clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that the position to which the visa application relates must be the subject of an approved nomination. This includes requirements that the nomination has been approved, not withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's employer, Zoom Mechanics, had its nomination application refused by the Department, and this refusal was subsequently affirmed by the AAT. Consequently, the nomination was not approved. The Tribunal communicated this to the applicant, explaining that an approved nomination was a prerequisite for the Subclass 186 visa. The applicant acknowledged understanding this requirement and conceded that he did not have an approved nomination, leading the Tribunal to conclude that he did not meet the criteria in clause 186.223(2).

As a result of the applicant failing to meet the essential criterion of having an approved nomination, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa. The Tribunal also found that the secondary applicant did not meet the relevant criteria.