Hewa Amaratunga (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Hewa Amaratunga against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to affirm the refusal of his Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa (Subclass 187). The applicant had sought an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Tribunal due to the recent death of his legal representative and his residence in a remote community, which he claimed made it difficult to secure new representation within the short timeframe.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law by refusing the applicant's request for an adjournment and proceeding to make a decision on the review application without his attendance. The court was required to consider the Tribunal's statutory purpose, as outlined in *MIAC v Li*, which mandates that reviews be conducted in a manner that is fair, just, economical, informal, and quick, and that discretion regarding adjournments must be exercised reasonably, having regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

The Tribunal's reasoning indicated that it had considered the applicant's request for an adjournment, noting that new reasons for postponement were raised in correspondence received shortly before the hearing. The Tribunal found that the applicant had been properly invited to the hearing, had received reminders, and had indicated he would not attend. Consequently, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under s.362B of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) to make a decision without further action to enable the applicant to appear. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the evidence before it did not establish the existence of a relevant nomination for the position, which was a key criterion for the visa.