Al Ishraaq Pty Ltd ATF Ahsan's Family Trust (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 993
•22 January 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Al Ishraaq Pty Ltd ATF Ahsan's Family Trust (Migration) [2019] AATA 993
[2019] AATA 993
22 January 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by Al Ishraaq Pty Ltd ATF Ahsan's Family Trust (the applicant) against a decision to refuse to approve its nomination for a Subclass 457 visa. The applicant sought to nominate Muhammad Shahid Iqbal for the occupation of ICT Support Engineer. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under section 140GB(2) of the Migration Act 1958 and Regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Tribunal considered various regulatory requirements, including whether the nomination was made in accordance with the prescribed process, if the nominator was an approved sponsor, and if the nominee was correctly identified. It also examined specific criteria relating to the nominated occupation, including its correspondence with specified occupation codes, the terms and conditions of employment for the nominee, and the genuineness of the position. The Tribunal assessed whether the applicant had provided the required certifications regarding conduct contravening section 245AR(1) of the Act and whether any adverse information was known to the Department of Home Affairs.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had satisfied all applicable criteria. It was satisfied that the nomination was made using the approved form and fee, that the applicant was a standard business sponsor, and that the nominee was correctly identified. The nominated occupation, ICT Support Engineer, corresponded with the relevant occupation codes specified in the applicable instrument. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment offered to the nominee would be no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work, and that the base rate of pay met the required threshold. The Tribunal also noted the absence of adverse information and the applicant's certification regarding conduct.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
The Tribunal considered various regulatory requirements, including whether the nomination was made in accordance with the prescribed process, if the nominator was an approved sponsor, and if the nominee was correctly identified. It also examined specific criteria relating to the nominated occupation, including its correspondence with specified occupation codes, the terms and conditions of employment for the nominee, and the genuineness of the position. The Tribunal assessed whether the applicant had provided the required certifications regarding conduct contravening section 245AR(1) of the Act and whether any adverse information was known to the Department of Home Affairs.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had satisfied all applicable criteria. It was satisfied that the nomination was made using the approved form and fee, that the applicant was a standard business sponsor, and that the nominee was correctly identified. The nominated occupation, ICT Support Engineer, corresponded with the relevant occupation codes specified in the applicable instrument. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment offered to the nominee would be no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work, and that the base rate of pay met the required threshold. The Tribunal also noted the absence of adverse information and the applicant's certification regarding conduct.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0