Amit Sharma (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Amit Sharma (the sponsor) against a decision to cancel his approval as a standard business sponsor. The cancellation was based on five alleged failures to satisfy sponsorship obligations, including providing equivalent terms and conditions of employment, notifying the Department of Immigration of certain events, ensuring sponsored persons worked in their nominated occupation, not recovering certain costs from sponsored persons, and providing false or misleading information. The decision under review was made by the Tribunal, presided over by Member Cathrine Burnett-Wake.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the sponsor had failed to satisfy the specified sponsorship obligations and, if so, whether the decision to cancel the sponsorship approval should be affirmed. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the sponsor's responses to notices of intention to cancel, the evidence presented, and the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994 concerning sponsorship obligations and the imposition of sanctions.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the sponsor had failed to satisfy several sponsorship obligations. The Tribunal was satisfied that the sponsor had failed to ensure equivalent terms and conditions of employment, had not notified the Department of changes in sponsored persons' duties within the specified timeframe, and that sponsored persons had performed duties outside their nominated occupation. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the sponsor had failed to comply with Regulation 2.87 by taking action that resulted in a sponsored person paying nomination and migration agent fees, and that the sponsor had provided a false document to the Department, constituting the provision of false or misleading information. The Tribunal considered the criteria for determining what action to take under section 140M of the Act, including the nature and severity of the failures and the impact on others.

Given that more than four years had passed since the sponsorship approval was cancelled, the Tribunal decided not to impose any further sanctions on the sponsor. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.