Dhindsa (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse the approval of a nomination made by Urban Estate Constructions Pty Ltd. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.233, which mandates, among other things, that the nominated position must be the subject of an approved nomination that has not been withdrawn. The Tribunal also considered the effect of the applicant's failure to respond to a notice issued under section 359A of the Migration Act 1958, which invited comments on information that would form the basis of the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that the nomination made by Urban Estate Constructions Pty Ltd had been refused on 5 December 2019. As an approved nomination is a prerequisite for meeting clause 187.233(3), this criterion could not be satisfied. Furthermore, the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's section 359A letter, which advised that a decision might be made without further comment and that failure to respond would result in the loss of certain entitlements. In light of this non-response, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision without further steps, applying section 359C and section 360(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, as the requirements of the Direct Entry stream, specifically the need for an approved nomination, had not been met.