Alpha Supper Cleaning Services Pty Ltd (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 2607
•22 July 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Alpha Supper Cleaning Services Pty Ltd (Migration) [2021] AATA 2607
[2021] AATA 2607
22 July 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by Alpha Supper Cleaning Services Pty Ltd (the applicant) for approval of a nomination of a position under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to nominate a position for a paid employee to work under its direct control. The core of the dispute was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of this nomination as set out in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had satisfied all the criteria stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) for the approval of a nomination under the Direct Entry stream. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, and whether it had provided sufficient evidence to support its claims. The Tribunal also considered departmental notes regarding past allegations and monitoring of the applicant, and whether these were relevant to the current application.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to provide any documentary evidence to either the Department or the Tribunal to support its nomination application. This included a failure to produce financial statements or tax returns, which were required by departmental policy for businesses established for more than 12 months to demonstrate active operation. While the Tribunal noted past allegations and monitoring, it gave them no weight due to their age and lack of detail. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination, as the applicant had not met the necessary requirements under regulation 5.19(4).
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had satisfied all the criteria stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) for the approval of a nomination under the Direct Entry stream. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, and whether it had provided sufficient evidence to support its claims. The Tribunal also considered departmental notes regarding past allegations and monitoring of the applicant, and whether these were relevant to the current application.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to provide any documentary evidence to either the Department or the Tribunal to support its nomination application. This included a failure to produce financial statements or tax returns, which were required by departmental policy for businesses established for more than 12 months to demonstrate active operation. While the Tribunal noted past allegations and monitoring, it gave them no weight due to their age and lack of detail. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination, as the applicant had not met the necessary requirements under regulation 5.19(4).
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2002] FCA 617
Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2012] FMCA 28
Visnumolakala v Minister for Immigration
[2006] FMCA 1209