Shi (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Shuhong Shi and Mr Fuzihou Zhou and Mr Chauanxin Zhou (the applicants) against a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) to affirm the refusal of their applications for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), under the Direct Entry stream. The applicants sought to have the Tribunal's decision reviewed.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the requirements of subclause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the nomination of a position in regional Australia, and whether the Tribunal had erred in refusing to grant further extensions of time for the applicants to respond to a section 359A invitation. The Tribunal was required to consider whether the provided documentation adequately evidenced a medical condition that prevented the primary applicant from responding to the invitation.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants had failed to satisfy the criteria for the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. In particular, the Tribunal found that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to justify an extension of time to respond to the section 359A invitation. While a document relating to radiation oncology was provided, the Tribunal considered it ambiguous and insufficient to demonstrate a medical condition that prevented the applicant from responding, referencing the principle in *Singh v Minister for Home Affairs* [2019] FCA 723 that an inadequate medical certificate may be assessed without further inquiry. As the substantive criteria for the visa were not met, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.