Yao (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review before the Tribunal, brought by the applicant, concerning a decision not to grant Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas, specifically Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visas. The applicant sought review of the refusal of their visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to the requirement for an approved nomination. A further issue arose concerning the eligibility of the second applicant, who was a secondary visa applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that cl.457.223(4)(a) requires that a nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant has been approved and has not ceased. The Tribunal noted that the nomination for the applicant for the position of Building Associate had not been approved. Consequently, the Tribunal found that this essential requirement of cl.457.223(4)(a) was not met. Regarding the second applicant, the Tribunal observed that cl.457.321 requires secondary visa applicants to be members of the family unit of a primary visa applicant who has satisfied the primary criteria and holds a Subclass 457 visa. As the primary applicant had not met the requirements for the grant of a Subclass 457 visa, the second applicant could not satisfy cl.457.321.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas.