Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by a delegate to refuse a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The delegate's refusal was based on the applicant not meeting the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the absence of an approved nomination.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant satisfied the requirements of cl.457.223(4)(a), which mandates an approved nomination of an occupation relating to the applicant by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had provided sufficient information or comments in response to a notice issued under s.359A of the Migration Act 1958, inviting submissions on adverse information, particularly the Tribunal's prior affirmation of the decision not to approve the nomination.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to provide comments within the prescribed period following the s.359A notice, and no extension had been granted. Consequently, pursuant to s.359C and s.360(3) of the Act, the applicant was not entitled to appear before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision without further comment from the applicant. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's registered migration agent represented them in relation to the review. As the applicant had not met the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream, and no claims were made regarding other streams under cl.457.223, the Tribunal found that the visa applicant was unable to satisfy the specific criteria for the visa.

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