VALEZA (Migration)

The applicant, Valeza, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to affirm the cancellation of her Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The dispute arose because Valeza had been employed in her nominated position for more than 60 days without a new nomination being approved by the Minister. The matter was heard by Justice George in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision to affirm the cancellation of Valeza's visa was affected by an error of law. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the Minister had correctly applied the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) concerning the requirement for a new nomination when a visa holder is employed in a nominated position for more than 60 days.

Justice George reasoned that Regulation 2.73(1)(b) of the *Migration Regulations* requires a new nomination to be approved if a visa holder is employed in the nominated occupation for more than 60 days. The Court found that Valeza had indeed been employed in her nominated position for over 60 days, and no new nomination had been approved. Consequently, the Minister was empowered under section 116(1)(g)(ii) of the *Migration Act* to cancel the visa. The Court concluded that the Minister's decision to affirm the cancellation was therefore correct and not affected by any error of law.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.