The problem I have with that is that while it technically does meet the "8 hours old" criterion, the majority of those hours weren't on the migration target (SFF). In that case, the migration target's folks didn't have the full amount of time to review the question and take whatever action that may have been needed.
That's relatively unharmful in this specific case (although it does promote a zero-research question, despite it being well-written), but I'm more worried about what could happen with more touchy subjects, such as politics, religion, and the like.
Even though users migrating questions are supposed to make sure that they're on-topic for the target site ("don't migrate crap")1, it would still feel sane (and normal) if the target site's community gets enough time to review it before the question hits HNQ, which is the whole point of the 8-hour delay, I think. A question can very well be on-topic and neatly written, yet still be controversial enough to spark HNQ drama.
Therefore, I suggest that the "8 hours old" criteria becomes "8 hours old on the site it's currently on". In other words, if a question gets migrated, reset the question's "age" calculated for the purposes of this criterion.
This question is highly related but isn't a feature-request, plus it was asked before the March revamp of HNQ.
1 Furthermore, if I'm reading the FAQ post on migration right, the target site has little (to no) say before the thing gets migrated. I imagine some checking is done by the mods/migration-voters prior to the act, but that doesn't sound enough of a failsafe in that case.