SARAKARN (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa, made by an applicant whose prospective employer, Suksabai Thai P/L, had its nomination application refused by the Department. The applicant was given an opportunity to provide comments or further information following the refusal of the nomination but did not do so.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that there must be an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the secondary criteria for the visa, which required the applicant to be a member of the family unit of a person who had satisfied the primary criteria and held a subclass 457 visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that as the nomination application had been refused, the applicant could not satisfy the requirement of having an approved nomination under subclause 457.223(4)(a)(i). The applicant had not provided any evidence or submissions to demonstrate satisfaction of subclause 457.223(2) or any other relevant criteria. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that no secondary applicants were included in the application, and the applicant was not a family member of an existing subclass 457 visa holder, thus failing to meet the secondary criteria. The Tribunal also invited the applicant to respond to information regarding the unapproved nomination, but no response was received.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa to the applicant, finding that the applicant had not met the prescribed criteria for the visa.