Sultana (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review by the applicants of a decision to refuse their Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa, specifically under the temporary residence transition stream. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of the nomination for the position of Accountant (General) lodged by the nominator, Aussie Marketing Force Pty Ltd, for the applicant. The applicants had one child who was an Australian citizen, but no submissions or evidence were presented regarding potential hardship arising from the refusal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for the visa, particularly clause 186.223, which mandates that the position be the subject of an approved nomination that has not been withdrawn and meets specific timeframes. The Tribunal also needed to consider whether any adverse information was known to the Department regarding the nominator or associated persons, or if such information could be disregarded.

The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination application was initially refused on 5 June 2020, and this refusal was affirmed by the Tribunal on 30 November 2023. As clause 186.223(2) requires the nomination to be approved, and the nomination in this case had been refused and its refusal affirmed, the applicants could not satisfy this criterion. The Tribunal had invited the applicants to comment on this information, but their representative confirmed that no additional comments would be provided and requested an expedited decision. The Tribunal noted that applicants could directly request ministerial intervention if they believed there were grounds for exceptional consideration.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicants did not meet the requirements for the visa due to the refusal of the underlying nomination.