Tantry (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa (Subclass 187) in its Direct Entry stream. The applicant, Mr Parthasarathi Tantry, was nominated by the Company for the position of Restaurant Supervisor. The dispute arose when the nomination was initially not approved, leading to a review by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination made by the Company for Mr Tantry for the position of Restaurant Supervisor met the requirements of the Migration Regulations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the nomination satisfied rule 5.19(4)(h) of the Regulations.

The Tribunal found that the nomination made by the Company for the position of Restaurant Supervisor in respect of Mr Tantry did meet the requirements of rule 5.19(4)(h) of the Regulations. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that clause 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations was satisfied. Given this determination regarding the nomination, the Tribunal decided that the appropriate course of action was to remit the visa application back to the Minister for consideration of the remaining visa criteria. The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the first named applicant met the criteria specified in clause 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.