Sidhu (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186, in the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The applicant sought review of a decision by the Department not to grant the visa. The Tribunal, constituted by Member Karen McNamara, was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires, among other things, that the position to which the visa application relates must have been the subject of an approved nomination that identifies the visa applicant, has not been withdrawn, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval. The Tribunal also considered whether there was any adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons, or if such information could reasonably be disregarded, and whether the nominated position remained available to the applicant.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirement for an approved nomination. It noted that on 15 September 2023, the Tribunal had affirmed the Department's decision not to approve the nomination in relation to Mr Rattanjot Singh Sidhu by Sharma Australia Pty Ltd. The Tribunal had previously invited the applicants to comment on information suggesting there was no approved nomination associated with their visa application, and had also invited them to a hearing. The applicants had not responded to these invitations. As the fundamental requirement of an approved nomination under cl.186.223(2) had not been met, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa.