Song (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically the Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme. The applicant sought to have a decision refusing their visa application reviewed by the Tribunal. The refusal was based on the assertion that false and misleading information had been provided, and that there was adverse information concerning the nominating person, who was alleged to be a victim of a migration scam. The application was reportedly lodged without the applicant's knowledge, though the business itself was stated to be operating lawfully and actively.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, and further, whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020(1) as required by clause 186.213(1). Clause 186.233 outlines specific criteria relating to the nominated position, the employer, the approval and withdrawal of the nomination, the absence of adverse information about the nominator or associated persons, the continued availability of the position, and the timeframe for visa application following nomination approval.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's submission that they had limited understanding of the Australian migration system and had provided documents to a Chinese agency with general authority to apply for a visa, without direct contact with the migration agent. It was argued that the applicant should not bear the consequences of the agent's fraudulent actions, particularly as they were a victim of a visa scam. The Tribunal noted that the migration agent's registration authority had found the agent had acted fraudulently. However, the Tribunal ultimately found that the applicant did not satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of clause 186.213(1).

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