Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Singh against a decision to refuse his application for a Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa, specifically under the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The employer, Anttal & Sandhu Pty Ltd, had lodged a nomination application in respect of Mr. Singh. The appeal also involved secondary applicants, identified as members of Mr. Singh's family unit. The decision was made by a member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the requirements for an approved nomination under clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994 had been met. This included whether the nominated position was the subject of an approved nomination, whether it remained available to the applicant, and whether the application was made within the prescribed timeframe after nomination approval. A further issue arose concerning the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider the applications of the secondary applicants, given their location outside the migration zone at critical times.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa for the primary applicant, Mr. Singh, on the basis that the nomination had not been approved. The Tribunal noted that on 1 November 2019, it had affirmed a delegate's decision to refuse the employer's nomination application. Consequently, Mr. Singh was not the subject of an approved nomination as required by cl.186.223(2), meaning this criterion was not met. As the secondary applicants' claims were dependent on Mr. Singh being granted a Subclass 186 visa, their applications were also affirmed as refused. Furthermore, the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to review the decisions relating to the secondary applicants because they were outside the migration zone when the visa application was lodged, when the delegate made their decision, and when the review application was lodged with the Tribunal, and had not re-entered the migration zone since their departure.