Wu (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically the Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant, Ms. Wu, sought review of a decision that had refused her visa application. The core of the dispute revolved around the approval of the nomination for the position of Newspaper or Periodical Editor, which had initially been refused by the Department but was subsequently approved by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the nominated position must be the subject of an approved nomination, that the nominator must be the prospective employer, that the nomination must not have been withdrawn, that there must be no adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or associated persons (or such information must be disregarded), that the position must remain available to the applicant, and that the visa application must have been lodged no more than six months after the nomination was approved.

The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence before it satisfied each of these requirements. It found that Pacific Financial News Pty Ltd, the nominator, was also the prospective employer, and its nomination for the Newspaper or Periodical Editor position had been approved by the Tribunal and not withdrawn. Furthermore, there was no adverse information known to the Department concerning the nominator or associated persons. The nominator confirmed the position remained available to Ms. Wu, and crucially, the visa application was lodged on 9 May 2017, which was within the six-month timeframe after the nomination's approval.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of clause 186.233 were met. The Tribunal remitted the visa applications for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the first applicant, Ms. Wu, meets the criteria under clause 186.233. The Tribunal noted it did not have jurisdiction concerning the second applicant.