Adroitt Group Pty Ltd (Migration) [2024] AATA 643 (13 March 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Adroitt Group Pty Ltd
REPRESENTATIVE: Mrs Alexandra Oliver (MARN: 1790427)
CASE NUMBER: 2104464
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2021/332487
MEMBER:P. Maishman
DATE:13 March 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substitutes a decision that the nomination is approved.
Statement made on 13 March 2024 at 3:19pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination – approval of nominated position – Short-term stream – Advertising Specialist – genuine position – financial capacity to support the position – decision under review set asideLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 140GB, 140GBA, 360Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 2.72, 2.73
CASES
Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP [2016] FCA 30STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 19 March 2021 to refuse to approve the applicant’s nomination under s 140GB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) and reg 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).
The applicant applied for approval on 7 March 2021. A nomination of an occupation for a Subclass 482 visa is made under s 140GB of the Act and reg 2.73 of the Regulations. The occupation must be nominated for a Subclass 482 visa in one of three alternative streams: the Short-term stream, the Medium-term stream or the Labour Agreement stream. Regulation 2.72 prescribes general and stream-specific criteria that must be satisfied for the Minister to approve a nomination by a person. These criteria are extracted in the attachment to this decision. Additional criteria are specified in s 140GBA. In this case, the occupation Advertising Specialist (ANZSCO 225111) is nominated for a Subclass 482 visa in the Short-term stream.
The delegate decided not to approve the nomination on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy reg 2.72(10)(a) because the delegate was not satisfied the position associated with the occupation is genuine.
In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the visa applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s 360(2)(a) of the Act.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal had before it a copy of the Departments file.
The applicant gave the Tribunal a copy of the delegates decision with its application for review. The Tribunal received substantially more documents supporting the application than were provided to the Department.
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the criteria for approval of the nomination. The Tribunal must approve the nomination if the applicant is an approved work sponsor and meets the requirements…
Continue reading Adroitt Group Pty Ltd (Migration)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Adroitt Group Pty Ltd (Migration) [2024] AATA 643
- Case
- [2024] AATA 643
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal was required to determine if Adroitt Group Pty Ltd, as the nominator, satisfied all the relevant legislative requirements for the approval of the nominated position. This included assessing whether the nomination complied with the prescribed process, whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration, if the nominator was a standard business sponsor, and if any debts had been paid. Additionally, the Tribunal considered specific criteria relating to the nominee's visa status and the nominated occupation's alignment with the Short-term stream requirements.
The Tribunal found that Adroitt Group Pty Ltd had met all the applicable criteria. It was satisfied that the nomination was made in accordance with the prescribed process, including the use of the approved form, payment of the training contribution charge, and proper identification of the nominee and occupation details. The Tribunal noted the absence of adverse information and confirmed the applicant's status as a standard business sponsor. Furthermore, the nominated occupation, Advertising Specialist (ANZSCO 225111), was correctly identified as a short-term specified skilled occupation under the relevant instrument, LIN 19/048, and the nominee's circumstances meant that certain additional requirements, such as those for existing Subclass 457 or 482 visa holders, did not apply.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of reg 2.72(3) are met.No adverse information known to Immigration Regulation 2.72(4) requires that either: there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the applicant or a person associated with the applicant; or it is reasonable to disregard such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in regs 1.13A and 1.13B. There is no material before the Tribunal that shows there is adverse information (as defined) known to Immigration about the applicant or a person associated with the applicant. For these reasons the requirements of reg 2.72(4) are met.Nominator is a standard business sponsor Regulation 2.72(5) requires that the person making a nomination is a standard business sponsor. The applicant is a standard business sponsor as evidenced by a copy of the Department’s notification of its approval as a standard business sponsor from 19 February 2021 effective until 19 February 2026. For these reasons the requirements of reg 2.72(5) are met.Payment of debt mentioned in s 140ZO Regulation 2.72(5A) requires that the person has paid in full any debt mentioned in s 140ZO of the Act. There is no information before the Tribunal that the applicant has any outstanding debt under s 140ZO. For these reasons the requirements of reg 2.72(5A) are met.Requirements for existing Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa holders The criteria for approval of a nomination contain several requirements if a Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa holder is identified as the person to work in the nominated position. In these cases:·the applicant must list on the nomination each person granted a Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa as a family member of the nominee, unless it is reasonable in the circumstances not to do so: reg 2.72(6)(a) and reg 2.72(7);·if the Minister requested evidence that the nominee satisfies the language test requirements, the applicant has provided evidence that the nominee satisfies the language test requirements specified for cl 482.223 (if the nomination is in the Short-term stream) or cl 482.232 (if the nomination is in the Medium-term stream): reg 2.72(14). The Department’s records show the applicant was previously the holder of a Subclass 462 visa and currently holds a Bridging Visa B since 7 March 2021 pending the outcome of his Subclass 482 visa application. As the nominee is not the holder of a Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa, the requirements of reg 2.72(6) and reg 2.72(14) do not apply.Specified occupation Regulation 2.72(8) requires that the nominated occupation and its 6-digit code correspond to an occupation and 6-digit code specified in the instrument in force at the time the nomination is made, that is, LIN 19/048. The occupation must also apply to the nominee in accordance with the instrument. In this case, the relevant instrument is LIN 19/048 which specifies the occupation of Advertising Specialist (ANZSCO 225111) in the Short-term Skilled Occupation List. At the time of lodgement, the nominated occupation was subject to no inapplicability conditions.