Senapathi (Migration)

This matter concerned a review of a decision by the Department of Immigration to refuse a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457. The applicant sought to have the decision set aside by the Tribunal. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination at the time the visa application was assessed. This involved considering multiple nomination applications lodged by the applicant's prospective employer, Sun Global Pty Ltd, and the Department's decisions to refuse each of them. The Tribunal also had to consider the impact of the repeal of the Subclass 457 visa and its replacement with the Subclass 482 visa on the applicant's ability to satisfy the nomination requirement.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 457.223(4)(a) clearly requires an *approved* nomination. Despite the applicant's explanation that his visa refusal occurred before the third nomination was refused, the Tribunal was bound to assess whether the requirements were met at the time of the decision. As the applicant confirmed he was not the subject of an approved nomination, and given that new nominations lodged after 18 March 2018 could not support an outstanding Subclass 457 visa application or review, the Tribunal found the essential criterion was not met. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's request for further time to find an approved nomination was not granted due to the visa subclass no longer being available.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision not to grant the visa. The Tribunal found that the requirements for the standard business sponsorship stream had not been met, and no claims were made or evidence provided regarding other potential streams within clause 457.223.