SEAQS PTY LTD (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered a review application by SEAQS PTY LTD (the applicant) concerning the refusal of a nomination for an ICT Support Technician. The applicant had previously been a standard business sponsor but had its approval cancelled and was barred from making future applications for a period of five years. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically whether it was a standard business sponsor or a party to a work agreement, as stipulated by regulation 2.72(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of regulation 2.72(4), which mandates that the nominator must be either a standard business sponsor or a party to a work agreement. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's status as a standard business sponsor had been cancelled, and this decision was not successfully reviewed due to a jurisdictional error in the review application. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to comment on this information, which was relevant to the criterion in regulation 2.72(4), but no response was received within the prescribed timeframe.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's failure to provide comments in response to the section 359A invitation letter, despite being informed that this information was crucial to the assessment of regulation 2.72(4) and could lead to the affirmation of the decision, indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the review. The Tribunal applied section 359C and 360(3) of the Migration Act 1958, which, in the absence of a response and without an extension being granted, meant the applicant was not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. Citing *Hasran v MIAC* [2010] FCAFC 40, the Tribunal confirmed that without an entitlement to a hearing, it lacked the power to permit an appearance.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the applicable criteria, specifically the requirement to be a standard business sponsor or a party to a work agreement.