Soos (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)), by a primary applicant and their family members. The dispute arose from the refusal of the primary applicant's visa application, which was linked to a prior refusal to approve a nomination application for the position of gardener by the sponsoring employer. The AAT heard the review of the visa refusal in conjunction with the review of the nomination refusal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the primary visa applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates an approved nomination of an occupation by a standard business sponsor. The Tribunal was required to determine if the absence of an approved nomination rendered the visa applications ineligible for grant.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 457.223(4)(a)(i) is a mandatory criterion for the grant of a Subclass 457 visa, requiring an approved nomination under section 140GB of the Migration Act 1958. As the Tribunal had previously affirmed the decision not to approve the nomination in a related case, it concluded that this essential criterion was not met. Citing the authority of *VARSI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR* [2018] FCCA 1280, the Tribunal determined that it would be futile to proceed with further hearings or submissions, as the visas could not be granted without an approved nomination.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to all applicants, as the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) and, by extension, clause 457.223(4) were not satisfied due to the lack of an approved nomination.