Sood (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187, Direct Entry stream, by Mr Himanshu Sood. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 187.233(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that the Minister must have approved the nomination for the position. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by De-Anne Kelly, was tasked with reviewing the decision to refuse the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied clause 187.233(3) and other related criteria for the Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to ascertain whether an employer nomination had been approved and had not been subsequently withdrawn, as well as whether the position remained available to the applicant and if the visa application was lodged within the prescribed timeframe after nomination approval. The Tribunal also considered whether it was reasonable to proceed to a decision on the papers, given the applicant's indication that he would not attend a hearing.

The Tribunal's reasoning centred on the fact that the employer nomination application had been withdrawn by the delegate of the Minister. Consequently, there was no approved employer nomination to satisfy clause 187.233(3). The Tribunal noted that while the delegate had refused the nomination under clause 187.233(4), this clause was not applicable as the nomination was not approved and was subsequently withdrawn. Given that the applicant was aware of the withdrawal of the nomination when lodging his review application, the Tribunal deemed it reasonable to make a decision on the papers without further information.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 187 visa, concluding that the applicant had failed to meet the essential criteria for the Direct Entry stream, specifically the requirement for an approved employer nomination.