MIGRATION - Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa - Subclass 482 - withdrawal of nomination review - decision on the papers - can be adequately determined - no approved nomination - decision under review affirmed

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), s 106

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 140GB, 348A

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 482.212

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 12 June 2024 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
2. The applicants applied for the visas on 8 February 2024. At that time, Class GK contained one subclass: Subclass 482 (Temporary Skill Shortage). The criteria for a Subclass 482 visa are set out in Part 482 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). Applicants seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for the visa must meet the 'Common criteria' and the criteria of one of three alternative streams: the Short-term stream, the Medium-term stream, or the Labour Agreement stream. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. In this case, the primary visa applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in the Medium-term stream.
3. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 482.212(1) because the nomination identified in the visa application had not been approved.
4. The first named applicant was nominated in the occupation of Telecommunications Field Engineer (ANZSCO 313212) for a position with Pun Communications Pty Ltd in an application submitted 7 February 2024. A delegate of the minister refused the nomination application on 27 March 2024, and Pun Communications Pty Ltd applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.
5. On 13 January 2026 Pun Communications Pty Ltd withdrew the nomination review application from the Tribunal. As a result the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination application is unchanged.
6. I wrote to the first named applicant on 29 January 2026 inviting them to comment on Pun Communications Pty Ltd's withdrawal of the nomination review. I noted that a criteria for grant of the Subclass 482 visa is that the nomination identified in the visa application has been approved under section 140GB of the Act, and that the withdrawal may support a conclusion that as the nomination identified in the visa application has not been approved, that criteria for grant of the Subclass 482 visa are not met.
7. On 9 February 2026 the applicants replied that:

We acknowledge that the nomination application lodged by PUN Communications Pty Ltd was refused and that the employer later withdrew its review application before the Tribunal. At present, we understand that there is no approved nomination linked to our Subclass 482 visa application.

8. The applicants emphasised that this decision was made solely by the employer and that they themselves have always acted in good faith, that they wish to continuing working in and contributing to Australia, and that the current situation is due to circumstances outside their control.
9. On 13 February 2026 I invited the applicants to take part in a hearing scheduled for 25 February 2026. By a signed statement dated 13 February 2026 the applicants declined this opportunity, stating:

We hereby make a formal and considered request that the Tribunal determine and finalise our review without conducting a hearing, and that the matter be decided solely on the basis of the documentary evidence and written material already submitted to the Tribunal. > > After careful consideration, we confirm that we do not wish to attend or participate in the scheduled hearing, either in person or by video conference. We respectfully submit that all relevant facts, supporting documents, and submissions in support of our application have already been provided, and that there is no additional oral evidence or further clarification that we can meaningfully add through a hearing.

1. Section 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) sets out the circumstances in which the Tribunal may reach a decision without a hearing. One such instance is where the only parties to the proceedings or hearing of the proceeding are the applicant and the non-participating party, the applicant requests that the Tribunal make its decision without a hearing, and the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding.
2. I am satisfied that the only parties to the proceeding are the applicants and a non-participating party.[1] Based on the clear and detailed signed statement from the applicants, I am satisfied that they have requested the Tribunal proceed to make its decision without a hearing.
3. The issue for determination in this matter is whether the applicant meets cl 482.212(1), which is the criteria the delegate found was not met. That provision requires that the nomination identified in the visa application is approved, was made by a person who was an approved work sponsor at the time of approval, and has not ceased.
4. Before me is a copy of the Department's file including the material submitted by the applicant to the delegate and a copy of the delegate's decision. Also before me is the correspondence from the applicants to the Tribunal in January and February 2026. As set out above, this includes an acknowledgement from the applicants that the nomination review application was withdrawn and that there is no approved nomination linked to the Subclass 482 visa application.
5. Having reviewed the available material in this matter, I consider that the issue for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding. I am also satisfied that the applicants have specifically asked that their matter be resolved with the Tribunal without a hearing. As such, I am satisfied the requirements of s.106(3) are met.
6. For the following reasons, I have decided to affirm the decision under review.

1. On the evidence before me, as noted above, I am satisfied that the nomination application associated with the position was not approved. As such, the visa application which is subject of this review is not linked to an approved nomination as required by cl 482.212(1), as there is no approved nomination at the time of the Tribunal's decision. Moreover, a review of the decision to refuse the relevant nomination application was withdrawn meaning the delegate's refusal decision remains undisturbed. The applicant's detailed correspondence indicates that they understand and agree with these salient facts.
2. On the material before me I am satisfied that cl 482.212(1) is not met. As one of the essential requirements for the visa is not met, the decision under review must be affirmed in relation to the first named applicant.
3. I also affirm the decision to refuse to grant the second applicant a subclass 482 visa as they do not satisfy the secondary visa criteria to be members of the family unit of a person who held a subclass 482 visa, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal that they meet the primary visa criteria in their own right.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visas.

[1] S 348A of the Act stipulates the Minister is taken to be a non-participating party to a proceeding for review of a reviewable migration decision under the ART Act.