1600017 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a review application concerning the refusal to grant Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants. The primary dispute centred on whether the first applicant met the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(e) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that an applicant must demonstrate the necessary skills for their nominated occupation in the manner specified by the Minister, if required. In this instance, the nominated occupation was Motor Mechanic, and the specified manner for demonstrating skills was a skills assessment from the relevant assessing authority.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants had provided the required skills assessment information within the stipulated timeframe, and consequently, whether they were entitled to a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also had to consider whether to exercise its discretion to adjourn the review to allow for the submission of further evidence, in light of the applicants' failure to provide the requested information.

The Tribunal reasoned that it had invited the applicants to provide a skills assessment from the relevant authority, TRA, by 4 November 2016. An extension was granted until 18 November 2016, but the applicants failed to submit the required information within this extended period. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that section 359C of the Migration Act 1958 applied, meaning the applicants were not entitled to appear before the Tribunal under section 360(3). Citing *Hasran v MIAC*, the Tribunal noted that without an entitlement to a hearing, it lacked the power to permit an appearance. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered its discretion to adjourn under section 363(1)(b), taking into account case law such as *Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs*, *Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship*, *Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li*, *Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh*, and *Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, which indicate that the Tribunal is not obliged to indefinitely defer its decision-making processes and that requests for adjournment must be reasonable.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visas. It concluded that the primary applicant did not satisfy the requirements of subclause 457.223(4)(e), and as a result, the secondary applicants, as members of the family unit, did not satisfy the criteria under subclause 457.321.