YI (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)), by an applicant and a secondary applicant. The primary dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for the standard business sponsor stream of the visa, specifically concerning an approved nomination of an occupation. The Tribunal was constituted by Member Jennifer Cripps Watts.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had an approved nomination of an occupation relating to her Subclass 457 visa application, as required by clause 457.223(4)(a) of the relevant regulations, and consequently, whether the visa refusal decision should be affirmed. The Tribunal also considered the secondary applicant's visa application, which was contingent on the primary applicant's eligibility.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the absence of an approved nomination. It noted that the applicant's visa applications were refused because the prospective sponsoring employer's nomination had been refused, and this refusal was subsequently affirmed on review by the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed that departmental records indicated no approved nomination existed for the applicant at the time of the decision. As this was a determinative criterion under clause 457.223(4)(a), the Tribunal found that the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream were not met. No claims were made regarding other visa streams, and there was no evidence to suggest the applicant could satisfy those criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to both the primary and secondary applicants.