Raag (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant met the requirements for an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor, a crucial element for visa grant. The departmental delegate had refused the application, and the applicant had initially sought review by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied clause 457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which mandates an approved nomination for the relevant occupation by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. The Tribunal had notified the applicant of information indicating that the nominator's application for approval of the nominated position had been refused and that the nominator had subsequently withdrawn their own review application. This meant the nomination was not approved.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had been on notice of this determinative issue since 2016 and had been specifically alerted to it in a letter from the Tribunal in January 2019, inviting comment. As the applicant failed to respond to this communication, the Tribunal applied section 359C of the Migration Act, which, under section 360(3), disentitled the applicant from appearing before the Tribunal. Citing *Hasran v MIAC* [2010] FCAFC 40, the Tribunal noted that without an entitlement to a hearing, it lacked the power to permit the applicant's appearance. Given the lack of response and the applicant's prior notification, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(a) were not met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.