Sharma (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Ms Priti Sharma and other applicants (Mr Rahul Sharma, Miss Rubaina Sharma, and Mr Ahaan Sharma) concerning their applications for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream, for the position of Restaurant Manager. The dispute arose after the Department of Home Affairs declined a request for deferral of a decision, and the Tribunal was asked to review the affirmed decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the requirements of clause 187.233, specifically concerning the approval of the nomination for the Restaurant Manager position. This clause mandates that the nominated position must be located in regional Australia, identified the applicant, and that the nominator must be the employer. Furthermore, the nomination must have been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, with no adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons, unless such information could be disregarded. The position must also 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 nominator's application to have the position of Restaurant Manager approved, with Ms Sharma as the nominee, was made on 16 October 2018. This nomination application was refused on 3 July 2019. The nominator sought review of this refusal, and on 24 March 2023, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal informed the applicants that this affirmed refusal meant they likely did not meet clause 187.233(3), which requires an approved nomination. The Tribunal also noted that if the primary applicants did not meet the criteria, the secondary applicants might not meet the family unit criteria under clause 187.311.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. This outcome was based on the finding that the nomination for the position of Restaurant Manager had been refused and that refusal affirmed by the Tribunal, meaning the requirement for an approved nomination under clause 187.233(3) was not met.