ZISHAN (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Stream, Temporary Residence Transition stream. The applicant sought to have the Tribunal afford them a period to reapply for a visa with the support of a new employer. The decision was made by Marten Kennedy, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 186.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires that the nominated position will provide the applicant with the employment referred to in the related nomination application. The Tribunal also considered the implications for secondary visa applicants who were members of the applicant's family unit.

The Tribunal reasoned that there was no existing nomination application in this case, meaning it was impossible to be satisfied that the employment referred to in a non-existent application would be provided. Furthermore, the applicant had indicated that the proposed sponsor was in liquidation and therefore unable to provide employment. Consequently, the applicant manifestly did not satisfy clause 186.212. As the primary applicant failed to meet the criteria for the visa, the secondary applicants, as members of the family unit, also failed to meet the secondary criteria.

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