Singh (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a visa applicant who sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The delegate's refusal was based on the applicant not being the subject of an approved nomination as required by the Migration Regulations 1994. The applicant had applied for the visa on 26 August 2016, at which time the Subclass 457 was part of the Class UC.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that the applicant must be the subject of an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor for a specified occupation, and that this nomination must not have ceased. This requirement was central to the delegate's refusal and the subsequent review.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the fact that the application for approval of the nominated position made by the nominator, the Trustee for Sathiyavan Family Trust, had been refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration. Furthermore, the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to consider an application for review of that refusal by the nominator. Consequently, the nominator's application for the nominated position had not been approved. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's representative had responded to an invitation to comment on this information, expressing a misunderstanding about the nominator's appeal process and the Tribunal's role in making inquiries. However, the fundamental issue remained that the nomination itself had not been approved, a prerequisite for the visa grant under clause 457.223(4)(a).