Norris (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Norris (Migration), involving an applicant seeking a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary work (Skilled)). The primary dispute concerned the refusal of the applicant's business nomination, which was a prerequisite for the visa. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(iii) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether their prospective employer had an approved nomination for the position.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant possessed an approved nomination at the time of the Tribunal's decision, as required by clause 457.223(4)(a). The Tribunal noted that the applicant's nominator, Seven Star Plastering and Rendering, had its nomination refused by the Department, and this refusal was subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal on 29 May 2017. The applicant had not appealed this decision. Furthermore, the Tribunal had invited the applicant to provide information demonstrating compliance with visa criteria by 20 March 2018, pursuant to section 359 of the Migration Act 1958. The applicant failed to provide this information within the prescribed period, and no extension was granted.

The Tribunal reasoned that the failure to provide the requested information within the stipulated timeframe meant that section 359C of the Act applied, and consequently, the applicant was not entitled to a hearing under section 360(3). Citing *Hasran v MIAC* [2010] FCAFC 40, the Tribunal held that without an entitlement to a hearing, it lacked the power to permit the applicant to appear. As the applicant did not have an approved nominator and had failed to provide information demonstrating compliance with the visa criteria, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) were not met. The secondary applicant's eligibility was dependent on the primary applicant meeting these criteria, which they did not.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas to the applicants.