Sonar (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186, Temporary Residence Transition stream, made by Mr. Sonar, and a subsequent application by Ms. Joshi as a member of his family unit. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with Member Katie Malyon presiding, was required to review the Department's decision to refuse the nomination and, consequently, the visa applications.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Sonar met the criteria for the Subclass 186 visa, specifically clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to the nomination of a position. This clause requires, among other things, that the nomination has been approved by the Minister and has not been withdrawn, that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available to the applicant, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal found that the Company's nomination application in respect of Mr. Sonar had been refused by the Department, and this refusal was affirmed by the Tribunal. Mr. Sonar had not provided any response or comment to the information provided by the Tribunal regarding this refusal. As the nomination application had not been approved, Mr. Sonar failed to meet the requirements of clause 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Consequently, as Mr. Sonar did not meet the primary criteria for the visa, Ms. Joshi, as a member of his family unit, also did not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas to either applicant.