Udhin (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr. Udhin and two other applicants concerning their applications for Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas, Subclass 457. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicants met the criteria for the standard business sponsor stream, specifically concerning the validity of an approved nomination at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants satisfied clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which mandates an approved nomination of an occupation by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. A key legal issue was whether the "savings provisions" under clause 6704 of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Skill Shortage Visa and Complementary Reforms) Regulations 2018 applied to the nomination, which was approved before 18 March 2018.

The Tribunal reasoned that the savings provisions did not apply because the applicant did not apply to the Tribunal for review of a decision to refuse to grant the visa within 12 months of the nomination's approval date. The nomination approval, dated 31 May 2017, ceased by operation of regulation 2.75(2)(b) on 31 May 2018. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the primary applicant was the subject of an approved, un-ceased nomination at the time of the decision, thus failing to meet the primary criteria for the visa.

As the primary applicant did not satisfy the primary criteria for the Subclass 457 visa, the Tribunal found that the secondary applicants, as family members, also failed to satisfy the secondary criteria under clause 457.321. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants.