Muthukuda Arachchige Dona (Migration)

This matter concerned a review application by Ms. Muthukuda Arachchige Dona (the applicant) against a decision not to grant her a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought an adjournment of a scheduled phone hearing due to her husband's interstate absence and her expressed nervousness. The Tribunal, constituted by Member Mark Bishop, considered the applicant's claims and evidence in relation to the visa criteria.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria for the Subclass 187 visa, specifically concerning the nomination of the position. This involved determining whether the position was the subject of an approved nomination, whether the applicant was identified in the nomination, and whether the nominator intended to employ the applicant. A secondary issue was whether the applicant's request for an adjournment of the hearing should have been granted.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal referred to the High Court's decision in *MIAC v Li* (2013) 249 CLR 332, which established that the Tribunal's discretion to grant an adjournment must be exercised reasonably, having regard to the specific facts and circumstances of the case and the Tribunal's statutory purpose to conduct reviews in a manner that is "fair, just, economical, informal and quick." The Tribunal found that the applicant had been afforded ample time to provide necessary documentation and had not presented sufficient evidence to justify an adjournment, such as a medical report detailing her nervousness or inability to attend a phone hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa, concluding that the applicant had not met the essential criteria for the Direct Entry stream.