Wang (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa, Subclass 886, made by an applicant who was not nominated by a State or Territory government agency. The applicant's sponsor, an Australian citizen, was not usually resident in Australia, which was a key point of contention.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements of subclause 886.222(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant's sponsor, who was related to the applicant as an aunt, was usually resident in Australia at the time of the application, as stipulated by subclause 886.222(3)(a)(iii).

The Tribunal found that the applicant conceded they were not nominated by a State or Territory government agency. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the sponsor had been outside Australia since September 2012 and had provided a letter indicating an intention to return after her husband's work contract in Dubai concluded, without specifying a timeframe. Despite the applicant's submissions that the sponsor had resided in Australia for a longer period than in Dubai and had retained proceeds from the sale of her Australian home, the Tribunal concluded that the sponsor did not appear to be usually resident in Australia at the time of the application, given her lack of physical presence since 2012.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa, Subclass 886, as the applicant failed to satisfy the relevant visa criteria.