Hassanzadeh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)), to the primary applicant, Mr Hassanzadeh, who was nominated as a Mechanical Engineering Draftsperson. The review was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of subclause 457.223(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the existence of an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor. A secondary issue arose from the applicant's late request for an adjournment due to medical reasons.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's request for an adjournment, noting the High Court's decision in *MIAC v Li* (2013) 249 CLR 332, which mandates that such discretion must be exercised reasonably and with regard to statutory purposes. The Tribunal found that the medical certificate provided did not explicitly state the applicant was unfit to attend a hearing, nor did it detail a course of remedial treatment. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for an adjournment. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of subclause 457.223(4) as there was no evidence of an approved nomination that had not ceased.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. The Tribunal also found it had no jurisdiction in respect of the secondary applicant.