Satinder Jeet Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions made by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The applicant, Satinder Jeet Singh, sought a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa under the Direct Entry stream, for the position of Retail Manager. His sponsoring employer, Chettiar Arul Sambandam, had applied for approval of the nomination for this position. The Department had refused the nomination application, and consequently, Mr. Singh's visa application. Both Mr. Singh and his sponsoring employer sought review of these decisions by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nomination for the position of Retail Manager had been approved, as required by the Migration Regulations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant could satisfy clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations, which mandates that the position be the subject of an approved nomination. The Tribunal also considered its obligations under section 359A of the Migration Act, which requires it to notify the applicant of any information that might lead to an adverse decision and provide an opportunity to respond.

The Tribunal reasoned that for a Direct Entry stream application under Subclass 187, clause 187.233 requires the nominated position to have been approved under the relevant regulations. The Department had refused the nomination because it did not satisfy regulation 5.19(4)(a)(ii). Following this refusal, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, informing him that the lack of an approved nomination meant he could not satisfy clause 187.233(3) and that the visa decision might be affirmed. The applicant was given a deadline to respond, but he failed to do so. Consequently, the Tribunal applied section 359C of the Migration Act, which allows the Tribunal to proceed to a decision without further steps if the applicant does not respond to a request for information.

As the applicant had not provided evidence of an approved nomination, and had not responded to the Tribunal's request for information, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements for the Direct Entry stream had not been met. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision not to grant the applicant's visa.