Opinder Singh Sidhu (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a nomination application made by Opinder Singh Sidhu (the nominator) for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa in the Direct Entry stream. The AAT was required to determine whether the nominator met the general requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) and the specific requirements for the Direct Entry stream under regulation 5.19(9), particularly subregulation 5.19(12) which applies to Subclass 187 visa nominations.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominated position could not be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident living in or willing to move to the local area, and whether the nominator had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy this requirement. Specifically, the Tribunal examined regulation 5.19(12)(c), which mandates that the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident, and regulation 5.19(12)(f), which requires advice from a regional certifying body on this matter.

The Tribunal found that the nomination application, lodged on 16 July 2019, contained no information demonstrating attempts to fill the position with an Australian citizen or permanent resident. The only documentation provided was a generic job description and business registration details. The nominator had indicated in the application that supporting documents would be provided later, but no updated or current information was subsequently submitted. The Tribunal noted that for a Subclass 187 visa nomination, it is a mandatory requirement that the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident, and that the nominator must provide evidence to this effect, including advice from a regional certifying body.

As the nominator failed to provide the requested information and evidence to satisfy the requirements of regulation 5.19(12)(c) and (f), the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the necessary criteria for the nomination to be approved. Consequently, pursuant to regulation 5.19(3)(b), the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.