SEALEY (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an appeal by Mr Sealey concerning a decision not to grant him a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457. The visa application was made by Special Group Australia Pty Limited as the standard business sponsor.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Sealey met the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates an approved nomination of an occupation in relation to the applicant. The Tribunal had previously affirmed a decision not to approve the nomination of an occupation for Mr Sealey.

The Tribunal reasoned that subclause 457.223(4)(a) requires an approved nomination that has not ceased. As there was no evidence of an approved nomination in respect of Mr Sealey, and the nomination itself had been refused, the Tribunal considered it would be futile to proceed further, citing the authority of *Varsi v Minister for Immigration & Anor* [2018] FCCA 1280. The applicant acknowledged that an approved nomination was essential for the visa grant. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the criteria under subclause 457.223(4) were not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr Sealey the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.