Gautam (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The applicant sought review of a decision that affirmed the refusal of their visa application. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had an approved nomination for the Subclass 457 visa at the time of their application. This involved considering the evidence of nominations made by Himalayan Chargrill Pty Ltd, including a refusal of a nomination on 1 December 2017 and a subsequent nomination made on 22 January 2018. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's response, or lack thereof, to requests for information regarding the nomination and the impact of legislative changes to the Subclass 457 visa program.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had been notified of the critical issue of an approved nomination since the initial delegate's decision and had been given multiple opportunities to provide relevant information. Despite being sent a general request for information and a formal invitation under section 359A of the Migration Act 1958 to comment on adverse information indicating a further nomination refusal on 30 January 2018, the applicant failed to respond within the prescribed periods. Consequently, the Tribunal applied sections 359C and 360(3) of the Act, deeming the applicants not entitled to a hearing and proceeding to a decision based on the available information. The Tribunal found no information suggesting the case had any prospect of success and concluded that the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream had not been met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas, finding that the applicant had not met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a). No claims were made regarding other visa streams, and there was no evidence to suggest the applicant could satisfy their criteria.