Santos Mendonca (Migration)

The applicant, Santos Mendonca, sought review of a decision concerning her application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry Stream, for the occupation of Child Care Worker. The dispute arose because the applicant's visa application was initially linked to an unrelated nomination application due to a typographical error in the Transaction Reference Number (TRN). Despite the correct nomination being approved, the Department indicated the visa application could not be assessed further and offered the option to withdraw and reapply. The applicant's representative argued the incorrect TRN was a genuine typing error, not a substantive mistake, and that re-lodging would have severe consequences due to updated visa requirements. The matter was heard by Alan McMurran.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had made an inadvertent mistake or innocent error in providing the incorrect TRN, and if so, whether this error could be rectified to allow the application to be processed based on the corrected nomination. The Tribunal was required to consider the Department's stance that the error prevented further assessment and the applicant's contention that the error was a mere typographical mistake, not a fundamental flaw, and that the integrity of the process had not been threatened.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had indeed made a mistake by submitting the wrong TRN, but found this mistake to be inadvertent and a typographical error. It noted that all other submitted information related to the correct nomination for the Child Care Worker position, and that the applicant had promptly attempted to rectify the error. The Tribunal preferred the view that it could consider additional evidence to clarify the intended nomination and determine if an incorrect answer could be corrected, finding that refusing to do so would not serve procedural fairness, especially when the integrity of the process was not compromised. The Tribunal concluded that the error was a genuine mistake and typographical, and that the intended visa application was always for the nominated occupation.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister. The direction was that the applicant meets the criteria for the Subclass 187 visa, specifically referencing cl.187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and that the remaining criteria for the visa should be considered.