Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to have the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed, which had affirmed the refusal of the visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically concerning the nomination of a position by the employer.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the essential criteria for the grant of the Subclass 187 visa, particularly clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations. This clause mandates, among other things, that the position be nominated in an approved application, that the nominator be the prospective employer, that the nomination has been approved and not withdrawn, and that the visa application is made within six months of the nomination's approval. A key issue was the status of the employer's nomination, which had previously been refused by the Tribunal in a related AAT case.

The Tribunal reasoned that a fundamental requirement for the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream is an approved nomination for the position. It noted that the employer's nomination had been refused by the Tribunal on 30 January 2019. Consequently, the Tribunal explained to the applicant that without evidence of an approved nomination, the applicant could not satisfy clause 187.233(3) of the Regulations, which requires the Minister to have approved the nomination. As this essential criterion was not met, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not satisfy the requirements for the visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.