Dhaliwal (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Dhaliwal, against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the refusal of a Subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa (Direct Entry stream). The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa, specifically concerning the approval and validity of the employer's nomination for the position of Primary Products Inspector.

The AAT was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.233(3) of the Migration Regulations, which mandates that the Minister must have approved the nomination. This clause, as applicable, required the nomination to be for a position in regional Australia, approved by the relevant nominator, not subsequently withdrawn, and that the applicant be identified in relation to the position if the nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017. Further requirements included that the nominator be the prospective employer, that no adverse information be known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, that the position remained available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's explanation that the original nomination was refused, the employer subsequently closed the business, and the applicant was now working elsewhere. The applicant sought an adjournment to prepare a new visa application. The Tribunal declined this request, distinguishing it from the circumstances in *Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li*, where an adjournment was granted for a specific, pivotal piece of evidence. Here, the request was for the preparation of a different visa application, which the Tribunal found inconsistent with the principles for granting an adjournment. The Tribunal also noted its obligations under section 359AA of the Act to inform the applicant of reasons for affirming the decision and provide an opportunity to respond.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. The primary reason for this was the failure to satisfy the requirement of an approved nomination, as the original nomination had been refused and the employer's business had ceased to operate, rendering the position unavailable. The applicant's request for an adjournment was not granted as it did not align with the purpose for which adjournments are typically considered in such reviews.