A Pannu Investments Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning a nomination for a Subclass 482 visa. The applicant, A Pannu Investments Pty Ltd, sought approval of its nomination for the occupation of Cook under the Short-term stream, as specified in IMMI 18/048. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the various criteria prescribed by the Migration Regulations 1994 for the approval of such a nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had complied with the prescribed nomination process under regulation 2.72(3), including whether the nomination was made in the approved form and fee, and if the nominated occupation was listed in the relevant instrument. Further issues included whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the applicant or associated persons, whether the applicant was an approved standard business sponsor, and if any debts under section 140ZO of the Act had been paid. The Tribunal also had to consider specific requirements relating to the nominee, who held a Subclass 457 visa at the time the nomination was lodged, including the listing of family members and, if requested, evidence of language proficiency.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on a detailed assessment of the applicant's compliance with each relevant regulation. It found that the nomination met the procedural requirements of regulation 2.73, including the correct form, fee, and identification of the nominee and occupation details. The Tribunal was satisfied that no adverse information was known to Immigration and that the applicant was an approved standard business sponsor. Crucially, the Tribunal confirmed that the nominated occupation, Cook, was listed in IMMI 18/048 for the Short-term stream and that the position was genuine. It also noted that the nominee's previous Subclass 457 visa had ceased shortly after the nomination was lodged, but that the nomination correctly listed the nominee and her family members.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had satisfied all applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a new decision approving the nomination.