Singh (Migration) [2026] ARTA 594 (6 March 2026)

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 482.212, 482.312; r 2.75

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 24 January 2025 to refuse to grant the 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 17 October 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, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. In this case, the first named applicant (the primary applicant) is seeking the visa in the Medium-term stream to work in the nominated occupation of Chef for Aus Insurance Services Pty Ltd (the employer sponsor). The second named applicant (the secondary applicant) is seeking to meet the secondary criteria for the visa as a member of the primary applicant's family unit.
3. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visas on the basis that the primary applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 482.212 and the secondary applicant did not satisfy cl 482.312 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary applicant did not satisfy cl 482.212(1) because the associated nomination application by the employer sponsor was refused by the Department on 18 November 2024. As the primary applicant did not satisfy the primary criteria for the visa and was not a holder of a Subclass 457 or 482 visa, the secondary applicant did not satisfy cl 482.312.
4. On 7 February 2025, the applicants applied for review of the delegate's decision to refuse their visas to the Tribunal. They submitted a copy of the decision record and colour copies of their passport biopages with their review application. The applicants were represented in relation to the review.
5. On 18 February 2026, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination application made by the applicants' employer sponsor.[1] Following its decision to affirm the associated nomination refusal, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants in accordance with s 359A of the Act, inviting the applicants to comment on information which the Tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the visa refusal decisions that are the subject of this review. The adverse information put to the applicants for comment in summary was that the Tribunal had affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the employer sponsor's nomination of the primary applicant's position associated with the nominated occupation of Chef on 18 February 2026, and as there was no approved nomination associated with the applicants' visa application, the Tribunal explained that it may find that the primary applicant does not meet cl 482.212(1)(a) and that the secondary applicant, who applied on the basis of being a member of the family unit of the primary applicant, does not meet cl 482.312(1), which are essential criteria for the grant of the visas. The applicants were invited to comment on this information in writing by 26 February 2026.
6. The Tribunal also notified the applicants by a letter dated 18 February 2026 of a video hearing scheduled at 10AM on 6 March 2026. The hearing notice and the enclosed factsheet stated that if the applicants cannot attend the scheduled hearing, they must advise the Tribunal as soon as possible and that if they did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision on the available documents and information without holding the hearing.
7. The hearing notice was emailed to the representative as the authorised recipient nominated by the applicants to receive documents in connection with the review. There is no information before the Tribunal that the applicants varied or withdrew the authorised recipient. Accordingly, the Tribunal is required to give to the authorised recipient, instead of the applicants, any document that it would otherwise have given to the applicants (s 379G of the Act). There is no information before the Tribunal that this email was not received by the authorised recipient and the applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that it gave written notice to the applicants of the scheduled hearing as required under s 72(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act) and the notice was given in accordance with ss 374(1) and 379A(5) of the Act. The notice was given to the applicant's authorised recipient and therefore the Tribunal is taken to have given the notice to the applicant (s 379G(2) of the Act).
8. The Tribunal notes a case note dated 2 March 2026 which records a Tribunal officer's telephone call with the applicant in relation to a test call on Microsoft Teams. The applicant in the call acknowledges that they are aware of the hearing scheduled for 6 March 2026 and as they were at work they requested a reschedule of the test call to 4 March 2026. Although a letter advising of a rescheduled test call was sent to the applicants, a subsequent case note dated 4 March 2026 records that the applicants did not attend the second test call.
9. The applicants were also informed of the hearing by SMS messages on 26 February 2026 and 5 March 2026 sent to their personal mobile phone number provided by them in their review application. There is no information before the Tribunal that these messages were not received by the applicants.
10. In the circumstances and the procedural history set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the hearing.
11. The applicants did not respond to any of the Tribunal's written communication to date, including the Tribunal's invitation to the applicants to comment on adverse information by 26 February 2026. The applicants also did not contact the Tribunal to request an extension of time to respond in writing or for a postponement of the hearing. Nor did they indicate that they will not be able to attend the hearing.
12. Despite being notified of the scheduled hearing and acknowledging their awareness of the date of the hearing, the applicants did not appear at the date, time and place of the hearing. The Tribunal monitored the Teams video/audio hearing room from 9:45AM to 10:20AM but neither the applicants nor their representative joined to attend the hearing. The applicants also did not pick up or return the Tribunal officer's call. There is no information before the Tribunal as at the date and time of this decision that the applicants and their representative contacted the Tribunal to explain their failure to appear at the hearing and to provide relevant information in relation to their review. The Tribunal finds that the applicants failed to appear at a Tribunal case event in relation to their review proceeding.[2]
13. Section 56(2) of the ART Act requires that a party to a proceeding in the Tribunal and any person representing the party must use their best endeavours to assist the Tribunal to achieve the objectives in s 9. One of those objectives include that applications to the Tribunal are resolved as quickly and with as little formality and expense, as a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits (s 9(b) of the ART Act). The applicants and their representative have not contacted the Tribunal since making their review application on 7 February 2025. Their lack of meaningful engagement in progressing the review application is unsatisfactory, and the Tribunal was not assisted by the applicants or their representative in this matter.
14. The Tribunal finds that s 106(5) of the ART Act applies in this case and it is appropriate in the circumstances to make a decision in this review after considering the documents and things given to the Tribunal and without a holding the hearing of the proceeding.
15. As set out above in detail, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the hearing which is a Tribunal case event, and the applicants failed to appear at the Tribunal case event. The applicants are not a non-participating party to the proceeding or Tribunal case event.[3] Therefore, ss 106(5)(a), (b) and (c) are satisfied.
16. The issues for determination in this proceeding are:
    • whether the primary applicant meets cl 482.212(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, being that the nomination identified in the application has been approved under s 140GB of the Act, the person who made the nomination was an approved sponsor at the time the nomination was approved, and the approval of the nomination has not ceased under reg 2.75; and
    • whether the secondary applicant meets cl 482.312(1), being that she is a member of the family unit of a person who, having satisfied the primary criteria, is the holder of a subclass 457 or a subclass 482 visa.
17. The above issues are matters of fact that can be determined on the existing evidence. Having reviewed the available material in this matter, the Tribunal considers that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding. Accordingly, s 106(5)(d) is met.
18. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to proceed to a decision without a hearing.

1. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided that the decisions under review should be affirmed.

1. Clause 482.212(1) 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.
2. As set out above, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the employer sponsor's nomination application on 18 February 2026. The applicants did not respond to the Tribunal's invitation to comment on this information in writing, and they did not take up the opportunity to give evidence and make submissions in relation to the issue on review and the information at a hearing.
3. The Tribunal finds on the information before it that the nomination identified in the application has not been approved under s 140GB of the Act. As there is no approved nomination in respect of the primary applicant, he does not meet cl 482.212(1)(a).
4. Based on the available information before the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that the primary applicant is not a person who, having satisfied the primary criteria, is the holder of a Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa or a Subclass 482 (Temporary Skill Shortage) visa. Therefore, the secondary applicant does not meet cl 482.312(1).
5. As the relevant criteria for the visas are not met by any of the applicants, the decision under review must be affirmed.

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

Date(s) of hearing**: 6 March 2026 - the applicants did not attend.**

Representative for the Applicant: Mr Harpalyad (MARN: 1571524)

[2] Section 4 of the ART Act defines 'proceeding' to include 'an application for review of a reviewable decision' and 'Tribunal case event' to include 'the hearing, or part of the hearing, of the proceeding'.

[3] Section 348A(1) of the Act provides that the Minister is taken to be a non-participating party to a proceeding for review of a reviewable migration decision or a reviewable protection decision for the purposes of the ART Act.