Vahala (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) Subclass 457 visa. The primary dispute was whether the applicants met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to the necessity of an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine if the decision to refuse the visa should be affirmed.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the primary visa applicant satisfied the criteria outlined in clause 457.223(4)(a), specifically that there was an approved nomination for the occupation by a standard business sponsor that had not ceased. This required the Tribunal to consider the validity and approval status of the nomination made by the sponsor, Ceci’s Catering Pty Ltd, for the applicant to be employed as a Finance Manager.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to approve the nomination, noting that it had previously affirmed the Department's decision to refuse the nomination application on 31 July 2018. The applicants, through their migration agent, acknowledged they did not meet the criteria at Regulation 457.224 and argued the Tribunal had not properly construed the role of a Finance Manager. However, the Tribunal found that the primary visa applicant was not the subject of a nomination approved under section 140GB of the Act, thus failing to meet the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a). Consequently, as the primary applicant did not satisfy the primary criteria for the visa, the secondary applicants, as family members, also failed to satisfy the secondary criteria under clause 457.321.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants.