Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision to refuse to grant Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas to the applicants. The primary applicant sought a Subclass 187 visa, with the second applicant seeking to be included as a member of the family unit. The core dispute revolved around whether the visa application was supported by an approved nomination as required by the relevant migration regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa, specifically whether the position to which the application related was the subject of an approved nomination. This involved assessing whether the nomination had been approved, had not been withdrawn, and whether the applicant was identified in the nomination where applicable. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the position remained available and if the visa application was lodged within the prescribed timeframe after the nomination's approval. Furthermore, the Tribunal needed to determine if the second applicant met the secondary criteria for inclusion as a family unit member.

The Tribunal reasoned that a fundamental requirement for the grant of a Subclass 187 visa is an approved nomination. The applicant conceded that the nomination by True Dreams Pty Ltd ATF True Dreams Trust had been refused. The Tribunal explained that it had no discretion to consider circumstances leading to a nomination refusal or to link the current visa application with a subsequent nomination if the applicant found a new employer. The Tribunal also noted that the second applicant did not meet the secondary criteria for inclusion as a family unit member and had not demonstrated she could meet the primary criteria in her own right.

Consequently, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse to grant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas to the applicants.