Yan (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457, made by the applicant. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that there must be an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant had an approved nomination that satisfied the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a). The Tribunal considered departmental records indicating that the nomination made by Auservices Pty Ltd in relation to the applicant had not been approved and was administratively finalised in 2017. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the subclass 457 visa was repealed and replaced by the subclass 482 visa in March 2018, and that new nominations lodged after this date were for the subclass 482 visa, not for outstanding subclass 457 visa applications. The applicant's migration agent argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, referencing a previous decision concerning Auservices Pty Ltd's deregistration, and alternatively submitted that the application should be remitted for the lodgement of new subclass 482 visa applications.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to meet the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) because there was no approved nomination in place. The Tribunal found that the information provided by the applicant's agent did not overcome the fact that the nomination was not approved and that the subclass 457 visa framework had been replaced. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not met the requirements for the standard business sponsorship stream, nor had any claims been made or evidence provided to satisfy the criteria for other streams of the subclass 457 visa.

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