Yoo (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically the Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) direct entry stream. The applicant, Ms. Yoo, sought review of a decision to refuse her nomination. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by Member Andrew George, considered the evidence and claims presented.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to the nomination of a position for the Subclass 186 visa. This clause requires, among other things, that the nominated position be the subject of an approved nomination, that the nominator is the prospective employer, that the nomination has not been withdrawn, that there is no adverse information concerning the nominator or associated persons, that the position remains available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal found that the nomination had been approved and not withdrawn, and that the visa application was made within the prescribed six-month period. It was also satisfied that the nominator was the prospective employer and that the position remained available. Crucially, based on the evidence, including a Korean National Police Agency certificate, the Tribunal concluded that there was no adverse information known to Immigration regarding the nominator or any associated person, or that any such information was reasonable to disregard. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that clause 186.233 was met.

Given these findings, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the first named applicant, Ms. Yoo, meets the criteria under clause 186.233. The Tribunal also noted that it was open to the Department to reconsider the secondary applicant's application in light of these findings.