Sanam (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision to refuse a Skilled Employer Sponsored Regional (Provisional) (Class PE) visa, subclass 494. The applicant sought the visa based on a nomination lodged by SAAS Value Pty Ltd. The core dispute revolved around the validity of this nomination, which had been refused by the Department and subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 494.213(1) of the Migration Regulations, specifically that the nomination identified in the application had been approved. A secondary issue raised by the applicant was whether she had been denied procedural fairness because she was not invited to attend a hearing for the review of the nomination refusal.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant could not satisfy the requirement for an approved nomination, as the nomination by SAAS Value Pty Ltd had been refused and this decision was affirmed. The applicant conceded this point. Regarding procedural fairness, the Tribunal found that no hearing was conducted for the nomination review because SAAS Value Pty Ltd, the nominator, had lost its entitlement to a hearing due to failing to respond to a request for information under section 359A of the Migration Act. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that SAAS Value Pty Ltd had no entitlement to a hearing, and by extension, the applicant had not been denied procedural fairness. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's request for a recommendation to the Minister under section 351 of the Act but found insufficient information to support such a referral.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.