1507962 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning a nomination for a Subclass 457 visa. The applicant sought to have the decision not to approve the nomination set aside and substituted with a decision approving it. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination as prescribed by the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically focusing on regulations 2.72 and, where applicable, section 140GBA of the Act.

The Tribunal considered several regulatory requirements. These included whether the nomination was made in accordance with the prescribed process (r.2.72(3)), whether the nominator was a standard business sponsor or party to a work agreement (r.2.72(4)), and whether the nominee was correctly identified (r.2.72(5)). The Tribunal also examined the requirements for providing information about the nominated occupation, including the ANZSCO code and location (r.2.72(8A)), the absence of adverse information (r.2.72(9)), and whether the nominated occupation and its code corresponded to a specified instrument (r.2.72(10)(aa)). Finally, the Tribunal assessed the terms and conditions of employment for the nominee, ensuring they were no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work (r.2.72(10)(c)).

The Tribunal found that the applicant had complied with all applicable criteria. The nomination was made using the approved form and fee, identifying the nominated occupation as Customer Service Manager (ANZSCO code 149212) and the location as Brookvale NSW. The applicant was an approved standard business sponsor. The nominee, Ms Vivian Rodrigues Aun Machado, was correctly identified as a proposed applicant for the visa. No adverse information was known to Immigration, and the nominated occupation and code were specified in the relevant instrument. The Tribunal was satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment would be no less favourable than those for an Australian worker.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted it with a decision approving the nomination.