Woo (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant (and a second applicant as a member of the family unit) against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to affirm the refusal of their Subclass 186 Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa application. The visa was sought under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, based on a nomination made by Sushi Revolution Pty Ltd.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination associated with the applicants' visa application had been approved, as required by clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the nomination must be approved by the Minister and not subsequently withdrawn, among other conditions.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Department had refused the nomination application made by Sushi Revolution Pty Ltd on 27 July 2018. Although Sushi Revolution Pty Ltd had applied to the Tribunal for a review of this refusal, the Tribunal determined it had no jurisdiction in relation to that application on 6 December 2019. As no information was provided by the applicants to dispute this fact, the Tribunal found that the relevant nomination had not been approved. Consequently, the applicants failed to meet the criteria under cl. 186.223(2) and cl. 186.223 as a whole. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision in respect of the second applicant, as they did not meet the primary visa requirements and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants the visas.