Sapkota (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically the Subclass 186 Temporary Residence Transition stream. The applicant sought review of a decision concerning their eligibility, with the primary dispute revolving around the approval of the employer's nomination. The decision was made by a Tribunal member, Susan Reece Jones.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.223 of the relevant regulations. This clause mandates that the nominated position must have been approved, not subsequently withdrawn, and that there must be no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, or that such information could be reasonably disregarded. Additionally, the position must remain available to the applicant, and the visa application must have been lodged within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's employer nomination, initially refused by the Department, had subsequently been approved by the Tribunal on review. This approval meant that the applicant satisfied the criteria under cl.186.223(2). Consequently, the Tribunal found that the first named applicant met the requirements of cl.186.223.

Given this finding, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration. The direction was that the first named applicant met the criteria under cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and the remaining criteria for both the first and second named applicants were to be reconsidered.