Advanced Catering Aust PTY LTD (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Advanced Catering Aust Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination under the Direct Entry stream of the skilled migration program. The applicant sought to employ a marketing specialist, identified by ANZSCO code 225113. The delegate of the Department of Immigration had refused the nomination, citing concerns regarding adverse information and a lack of genuine need for the position. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the nomination met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether Advanced Catering Aust Pty Ltd had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the criteria for nomination approval, particularly in light of adverse information that had been brought to its attention. This adverse information related to a previous five-year ban imposed on an associated company, Advanced Catering Pty Ltd, for failures in sponsorship obligations, and winding-up proceedings against Advanced Catering Aust Pty Ltd. The Tribunal also needed to consider whether there was a genuine need for the nominated marketing specialist position, given the business's stated expansion plans and the director's lack of expertise in marketing.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged that significant evidence had been presented by the applicant that was not available to the original decision-maker. The Tribunal found that the director, Mr. Yu, lacked marketing expertise and that the proposed employment of a marketing specialist was crucial for the business's planned expansion into export markets and new domestic sectors. Regarding the adverse information, the Tribunal noted that while Advanced Catering Pty Ltd had been subject to a ban, this had been reduced by a previous Tribunal decision. Furthermore, the winding-up proceedings against Advanced Catering Aust Pty Ltd had been terminated. The Tribunal concluded that it was reasonable to disregard the identified adverse information, and that the evidence supported a genuine need for the nominated position.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.