Vall Rojo (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The applicant sought this visa as a Social Worker, with Civic Disability Services Limited – Caringbah as the proposed sponsor. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant was the subject of an approved nomination, a prerequisite for the visa grant.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that the applicant be the subject of an approved nomination of an occupation under section 140GB of the Migration Act 1958. This involved considering whether the nomination by Civic Disability Services Limited – Caringbah had been approved and remained valid, and whether the applicant had provided sufficient information or response to the Tribunal regarding this crucial aspect.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the absence of an approved nomination. It noted that the applicant's visa had been refused by the Department because the nomination application had been refused. While both the applicant and the nominator lodged review applications with the Tribunal, the nominator subsequently withdrew its application, which was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal then corresponded with the applicant, highlighting that the lack of an approved nomination was a primary reason for affirming the delegate's decision and inviting a response. As the applicant did not provide the requested comments or response, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements for the standard business sponsorship stream had not been met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.