GAO (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a review of a decision to refuse an Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa (Subclass 186) in the Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to have the refusal of their nomination application overturned.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's nomination application had been approved, as required by the relevant regulations for a Subclass 186 visa in the Direct Entry stream. This involved determining if the applicant had been afforded a real opportunity to present evidence and submissions, particularly in light of a last-minute request to reschedule a hearing and the applicant's subsequent attendance. The Tribunal also had to consider the specific criteria for a Direct Entry nomination, including that the nominated position must be the subject of an approved nomination, that the employer must be the nominator, and that there must be no adverse information known to the Department of Immigration.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant's agent had requested a hearing reschedule, the applicant was still advised that the hearing would proceed. Although the applicant claimed to have had insufficient notice and was coming from a meeting, the Tribunal found that the applicant, represented by an agent, had been provided with the invitation letter and had retained professional assistance. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had a meaningful opportunity to respond to the matters discussed during the hearing, including the presentation of substantial evidence. Applying the criteria for the Direct Entry stream, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements, including the approval of the nomination, had not been met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa.