Vo (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the refusal of a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa (subclass 482, medium-term stream). The applicant sought to have the decision reviewed, attributing the failure of his nomination application to the actions and inactions of a previous migration agent. The applicant also requested the Tribunal to reconsider the nominator's review application and sought an adjournment or recusal, which were not accepted.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 482.212(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the necessity of an approved nomination for the visa application. The Tribunal was required to determine if the nominator's application for approval of the nominated position had been approved and had not ceased, as stipulated by the regulations.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had agreed he did not have an approved nomination associated with his visa application. It noted that the nominator's application for approval of the nomination had been refused by a delegate of the Minister and that a subsequent review of that refusal had been finally determined, meaning the nomination was not approved. The Tribunal informed the applicant that this lack of an approved nomination would be a reason to affirm the decision under review. Despite the applicant's explanations and criticisms of his former migration agent, and the evidence provided by a new General Manager of the nominator, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not met the visa requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal also found that the other named applicants, who were family members, did not satisfy their respective visa requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visas.