Mushiana (Migration)

This decision concerns an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream, for a Restaurant Manager. The applicant's case was reviewed by the Tribunal, which affirmed the decision to refuse the visa. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.233(3) of the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved nomination for the position.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233(3), specifically concerning the approval of the employer nomination. This clause mandates that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, identified in the nomination application, and that the nominator be the prospective employer. Furthermore, it requires the nomination to be approved and not withdrawn, the absence of adverse information about the nominator or associated persons, the continued availability of the position, and that the visa application be lodged within six months of the nomination approval.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa because it was not satisfied that the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, leading to the refusal of the employer nomination. Consequently, there was no approved employer nomination to satisfy clause 187.233(3). While the applicant requested additional time to find a new sponsor, the Tribunal declined an indefinite adjournment. The Tribunal was guided by the principles in *Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li* [2013] HCA, which suggests adjournments are warranted when a specific, material document is forthcoming, a situation not present here. The Tribunal also considered *Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs* and *Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship*, which establish that the Tribunal is not obliged to indefinitely postpone its decision-making processes.