Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Singh against a decision not to grant him an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Temporary Residence Transition stream of the Subclass 186 visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr. Singh met the eligibility requirements for this visa subclass, particularly concerning the necessity of an approved nomination.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr. Singh satisfied clause 186.223 of the Migration Regulations, which mandates that for applicants in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the position must be the subject of an approved nomination. This includes requirements that the nomination has been approved, not withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was lodged within six months of the nomination's approval. The Tribunal also considered Mr. Singh's request for a referral for Ministerial Intervention based on compassionate circumstances.

The Tribunal reasoned that a fundamental criterion for the Subclass 186 visa is an approved nomination. The evidence before the Tribunal indicated that Mr. Singh's position nomination had been refused and was no longer available. Despite Mr. Singh presenting evidence of health issues, the death of his father, and problems with a previous representative, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that he was the subject of an approved nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal found that clause 186.223 was not met, and as this was the only visa stream for which claims were made, the appeal could not succeed.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr. Singh the visa. It also noted that Mr. Singh was at liberty to make a direct request for Ministerial Intervention, rather than seeking a referral from the Tribunal.