Yang (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant the visa, which stemmed from the refusal of an approved nomination application by the sponsoring business, Zia Information Technology Pty Ltd. The refusal was based on the grounds that the sponsoring business was not lawfully and actively operating, and that false and misleading information had been provided in relation to the nomination.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.186.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the approval of the nomination, and whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020(1) as required by cl.186.213(1). Clause 186.233 mandates that the nominated position must be the subject of an approved nomination application, that the employer making the nomination must be the one who will employ the applicant, and that there must be no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons. PIC 4020(1) requires that the applicant has not provided false or misleading information in relation to the visa application or a previous visa.

The court found that cl.186.233 could not be met because the nomination application by Zia Information Technology Pty Ltd had been refused and this decision was affirmed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the nomination was not approved. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant did not satisfy PIC 4020(1) due to the provision of false or misleading information. The applicant's assertions regarding unfairness and personal circumstances, including property purchases and rental agreements, did not alter the assessment of these criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa.