Sood (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to have the decision affirmed by the Tribunal. The primary issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.233(3), which stipulates that the Minister must have approved the nomination. This clause, as applicable, required that the nominated position be located in regional Australia, be the subject of an approved nomination application, and that the applicant be identified in relation to the position if the nomination was made on or after 1 July 2017. Further requirements included that the nominator be the prospective employer, that the nomination had been approved and not subsequently withdrawn, that there was no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, that the position remained available, and that the visa application was made within six months of the nomination approval.

The Tribunal found that the employer nomination had been withdrawn before it could be assessed by the Department, and consequently, the visa application was refused under clause 187.233(4). The applicant sought review of this refusal. The Tribunal also considered a request to postpone a hearing due to medical certificates, but declined it as the certificates did not establish an inability to attend a telephone hearing, referencing the principles in *Singh v Minister for Home Affairs* [2019] FCA 723. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 187.233, specifically that the nomination had not been approved and had been withdrawn.

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