Shrestha (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an appeal by a visa applicant concerning a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The applicant sought to work as an Accountant (General). The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination, a prerequisite for the visa.

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, specifically whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had provided sufficient information to satisfy other criteria for the visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 457.223(4)(a) mandates an approved nomination for the applicant's occupation by a standard business sponsor, which has not ceased. The Tribunal had previously affirmed the Department's decision not to approve the nomination made by the nominator. Following this, the Tribunal notified the applicant that as there was no current approved or pending nomination, the visa application would likely fail. The applicant was given an opportunity to respond but provided no further information or comments. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination as required by the regulations.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457, on the basis that the applicant failed to meet the essential requirement of having an approved nomination.