Dhanoa (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Mr Dhanoa, against a decision to refuse a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The applicant's case involved an approved nomination for a cook position. However, the applicant did not respond to an invitation under s 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and ministerial intervention was sought. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). This clause mandates that the nominated position must have been the subject of an approved nomination application, that the nominator must be the prospective employer, that the nomination must not have been withdrawn, that there must be no adverse information known to Immigration or such information must be disregarded, that the position must remain available, and that the visa application must be made within six months of the nomination's approval.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's Subclass 187 visa application was contingent on the approval of the nominator's nomination application. As the nominator's application had been refused by the Department and this decision was affirmed by the Tribunal, and the applicant failed to respond to information regarding this refusal, the applicant could not satisfy the criteria under cl 187.233(3). The Tribunal relied on the Full Federal Court's decision in *Singh v MIBP* [2017] FCAFC 105, which emphasised that the nomination process is a specific, "once off" event that must be approved at the time of the visa application.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. However, the Tribunal indicated it would refer the matter to the Department, considering the applicant's case and ministerial guidelines relating to discretionary powers.