Aerotech Aviation Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Aerotech Aviation Pty Ltd for approval of a nominated position under the Direct Entry nomination stream of the Migration Regulations 1994. The dispute arose when the Department of Immigration refused to approve the nomination of an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (Mechanical) position, which Aerotech Aviation sought to fill with a foreign national. The Tribunal was tasked with reviewing this decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Aerotech Aviation met all the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved determining, among other things, if there was a genuine need for the paid position, if it could not be filled locally by an Australian citizen or permanent resident, and if the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those offered to local workers. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's financial capacity and compliance with workplace relations laws.

The Tribunal reasoned that Aerotech Aviation had provided credible evidence demonstrating a genuine need for the position, particularly given the international tightening of the aircraft industry employment market and the unique nature of their business as the only aircraft storage and recycling facility in Australia and the Asia Pacific region. The Tribunal was satisfied that extensive recruitment efforts had been undertaken, including engagement with a specialist search firm, and that the position could not be filled locally due to a scarcity of suitably qualified and experienced personnel. The Tribunal also found that the proposed salary of $120,000 per annum was appropriate and reflective of the nominee's qualifications and experience, meeting the requirement for terms and conditions equivalent to those offered to Australian workers. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that Aerotech Aviation had a satisfactory record of compliance with relevant laws and that a Regional Certifying Body had issued the necessary advice.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.