Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Singh against a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) to affirm a decision that he did not satisfy a criterion for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant's nominated position met the requirements of clause 187.233(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Singh satisfied clause 187.233(3), which requires, among other things, that the nominated position be the subject of an approved nomination that has not been withdrawn and that the position remains available to the applicant. The Tribunal also had to consider whether it was required to grant an indefinite adjournment of the review to allow the applicant further time to obtain legal advice and potentially new evidence, particularly in light of the company that made the nomination having been de-registered.

The Tribunal reasoned that the company which made the nomination for Mr. Singh's visa application had been de-registered prior to the Tribunal's consideration of the matter. Consequently, there was no longer an approved employer nomination that could satisfy clause 187.233(3). The Tribunal considered the applicant's requests for adjournments, noting the significant delay in the review process, which had commenced in July 2019. Applying the principles from *Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li* [2013] HCA, the Tribunal found that an adjournment was not warranted as there was no specific, material document forthcoming. Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on *Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs* and *Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* to conclude that it was not obliged to indefinitely defer its decision-making process.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.