Sidhu (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme), Temporary Residence Transition stream. The primary dispute revolved around the approval of the nomination for the position of Hairdresser. The decision was made by Cathrine Burnett-Wake, a Member of the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination for the applicant's position as a Hairdresser had been approved, as required by clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. This clause necessitates that the nomination has been approved, not subsequently withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available to the applicant, and that the visa application was lodged within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's nominating employer, Esprit Hair Pty Ltd, had initially had its nomination refused by the Department. However, following a review, the Tribunal had previously set aside that refusal and substituted a decision to approve the nomination under subregulation 5.19(3). Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirement under clause 186.223(2) had been met. Given this finding, the Tribunal determined that the appropriate course was to remit the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining criteria for both the primary applicant and her family member.