ANTHILL CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD ATF A & S SAKR FAMILY TRUST (Migration)

[2020] AATA 5589

ANTHILL CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD ATF A & S SAKR FAMILY TRUST (Migration) [2020] AATA 5589 (18 November 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  ANTHILL CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD ATF A & S SAKR FAMILY TRUST

CASE NUMBER:  1812439

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/1896153

MEMBER:Mary Sheargold

DATE:18 November 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

Statement made on 18 November 2020 at 4:48pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – approval of a nomination – Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream – training requirements – tax invoice of purported training spending – decision under review affirmed         

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 363
Migration Regulations 1994, r 5.19

CASES

Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 617
Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 915
Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FMCA 28
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 24 April 2018 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under r.5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

2. The applicant applied for approval on 29 May 2017. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in r.5.19 of the Regulations which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream (r.5.19(3)) and a Direct Entry nomination stream (r.5.19(4)). If the application is made in accordance with r.5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met then the application must be refused: r.5.19(5).

3. In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream.

4. The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy r.5.19(3)(f) of the Regulations because it did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it met the requirements of either Training Benchmark A or Training Benchmark B during the relevant period, nor did it provide sufficient reason for the delegate to disregard those requirements.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to affirm the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream set out in r.5.19(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.

   Training commitments and obligations: r.5.19(3)(f)

8. Regulation 5.19(3)(f) requires the applicant to have fulfilled any commitments made relating to meeting training requirements, and complied with applicable obligations relating to training  requirements, during the period of the  applicant’s most recent sponsorship approval.  These requirements may be disregarded if it is reasonable to do so.

9. The nomination application was lodged with the Department on 29 May 2017, and the Department refused the nomination application in a decision made on 24 April 2018.  While the Tribunal notes the Departmental file contains documents relied upon by the delegate in reaching their decision, no additional information was provided to the Tribunal at review.

10. On 26 October 2020, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting the applicant to provide information that demonstrated that the business meets all of the requirements of the criteria in r.5.19(3) of the Regulations at the time of the Tribunal’s decision. A copy of r.5.19(3) was annexed to the letter. A response to the request for information was due by 9 November 2020. As at the date of this decision, no response has been received.

11. The Tribunal notes it has not received the information requested, and in these circumstances, it is able to proceed to decision based on the evidence before it.

12. The Tribunal has considered whether it should adjourn the review under s.363(1)(b) of the Act to allow the applicant additional time in which to provide further evidence to support its review application.

13. In doing so, the Tribunal has taken into account the decisions in the Tribunal has taken into account the decisions in Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[1] and Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[2] where the Courts have held that the Tribunal is not required to indefinitely defer its decision-making processes. It has also had regard to the decision in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li[3] regarding the reasonableness of any request for an adjournment, and the Full Federal Court of Australia decision in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh[4] which considered this issue, as well as the more recent decision in Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[5] where analogous issues were discussed.

    [1] [2002] FCA 617.

    [2] [2012] FMCA 28.

    [3] [2013] HCA 18 (8 May 2013).

    [4] [2014] FCAFC 1 (4 February 2014).

    [5] [2014] FCA 915 (28 August 2014).

14. The Tribunal has considered whether, in the circumstances of this case, the information that the applicant meets the requirements in r.5.19(3) is likely to be forthcoming and whether the applicant has had a fair opportunity to provide the relevant information already, and the significance of the information to the applicant.

15. The Tribunal has had regard to the fact that the nomination application was refused by the Department on 24 April 2018 because the delegate concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that it had met its obligations in respect of either Training Benchmark A or Training Benchmark B during the relevant period.  The applicant submitted a copy of the primary decision record with the review application.  As a result, the Tribunal observes that the applicant has been aware for more than 30 months of the reasons for the nomination application refusal.

16. Further, as noted above, the applicant has provided no further information to the Tribunal since the application for review was received on 1 May 2018, despite being invited to do so.

17. In these circumstances, and for the reasons set out in this decision record, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has had a fair opportunity to provide the relevant information and sufficient time to take steps to satisfy the regulatory criteria. The Tribunal notes that it is uncertain if and when the applicant will provide information in writing as to whether the nominating business meets the requirements of r.5.19(3). The Tribunal is not disposed to delay making a decision indefinitely.

18. Accordingly, the Tribunal has decided not to exercise its discretion under s.363(1)(b) of the Act to adjourn the review any further to allow the applicant more time in which to demonstrate that the nominating business meets the requirements of r.5.19(3).

19. The Tribunal notes the statements regarding the applicant’s attempts to demonstrate that it had fulfilled its obligations under Training Benchmark A, and failing that, Training Benchmark B, contained in the primary decision record.  The primary decision record indicates that the applicant’s company payroll for its most recently concluded fiscal year, being the year ending on 30 June 2016, was $4,985,587.28.  The primary decision record notes the applicant argued that it would need to demonstrate that it had spent at least $49,855.88 on the provision or training to its employees who were Australian citizens or permanent residents to meet its obligations under Training Benchmark A.  For completeness, the Tribunal notes that the delegate identified that this assertion was erroneous, but nonetheless the delegate considered whether the applicant could in fact satisfy the requirement in Training Benchmark B.  The applicant provided the Department with a copy of a tax invoice for $55,000.00 purportedly spent on training, dated 19 September 2015.  The primary decision record noted that the tax invoice was insufficiently detailed to allow an assessment of whether or not the expenditure could satisfy the requirements in Training Benchmark B.  Among other things, the primary decision record notes there is no evidence that the training purportedly provided was provided to Australian citizens or permanent residents, nor was there evidence that the training was sufficiently structured and relevant to the purpose of the applicant’s business.

20. The primary decision record indicated that another document had been provided to indicate that $110,000.00 had been spent on training on 7 April 2017. The primary decision record indicated that the document provided contained no substantial or verifiable information to demonstrate or support the applicant’s compliance with Training Benchmark B and the document was given no weight. It is on the basis that there was insufficient evidence in respect of training that the delegate found the applicant had not met its obligations under either Training Benchmark A or Training Benchmark B during the relevant period. The primary decision record indicated that there was no reason identified to disregard subparagraph 5.19(3)(f)(i), and the delegate therefore considered it not reasonable to disregard the applicant’s failure to meet r.5.19(3)(f)(i) and as such, found that the applicant did not satisfy subregulation 5.19(3)(f)(ii).

21. No additional evidence has been provided to the Tribunal with the lodgement of the review application demonstrating that the applicant met its obligations under either Training Benchmark A or Training Benchmark B during the relevant period, nor was any evidence or reason provided to the Tribunal with the lodgement of the review application to persuade the Tribunal to disregard the training benchmark requirements in this instance.  Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is no quantifiable evidence before it at the time of review that could lead the Tribunal to find that the applicant met the obligations under Training Benchmark A or Training Benchmark B, or that it would be reasonable to disregard those obligations in this case.

22. Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(f) is not met.

23. For the above reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of r.5.19(3). The applicant has not sought to satisfy the criteria in Direct Entry nomination stream, and as such has not met the requirements in r.5.19(4). Accordingly, the nomination of the position cannot be approved. Therefore, the Tribunal must affirm the decision under review.

    DECISION

24. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

    Mary Sheargold
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  -  EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994

    5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)

    …

    (2)The application must:

    (a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and

    (aa) include a written certification by the nominator stating whether or not the nominator has engaged in conduct, in relation to the nomination, that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR(1) of the Act; and

    (b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.

    Temporary Residence Transition nomination

    (3)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:

    (a)the application for approval:

    (i)       is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and

    (ii)      identifies a person who holds a Subclass 457 … visa granted on the basis that the person satisfied the criterion in subclause 457.223(4) of Schedule 2; and

    (iii)     identifies an occupation, in relation to the position, that:

    (A)is listed in ANZSCO; and

    (B)has the same 4-digit occupation unit group code as the occupation carried  out by the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa; and

    (b)the nominator:

    (i)       is, or was, the standard business sponsor who last identified the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa in a nomination made under section 140GB of the Act or under regulation 1.20G or 1.20GA as in force immediately before 14 September 2009; and

    (ii)      is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and

    (iii)     did not, as that standard business sponsor, meet regulation 1.20DA, or paragraph 2.59(h) or 2.68(i), in the most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and

    (c)either:

    (i)       both of the following apply:

    (A)in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application, the holder of the Subclass 457 …visa identified in subparagraph (a) (ii) has:    

    (I)held one or more Subclass 457 visas for a total period of at least 2 years; and

    (II)been employed in the position in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa for a total period of at least 2 years (not including any period of unpaid leave);

    (B)the employment in the position has been full-time, and undertaken in Australia; or

    (ii)      all of the following apply:

    (A)the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa on the basis that the person was identified in a nomination of an occupation mentioned in sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(d)(iii)(B) or sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(e)(iii)(B);

    (B)the nominator nominated the occupation;

    (C)the person has been employed, in the occupation in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa, for a total period of at least 2 years in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application; and

    (d)for a person to whom subparagraph (c)(i) applies:

    (i)       the person will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years; and

    (ii)      the terms and conditions of the person’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and

    (e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:

    (i)are provided; or

    (ii)would be provided;

    to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and

    (f)either:

    (i)       the nominator:

    (A)fulfilled any commitments the nominator made relating to meeting the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and

    (B)complied with the applicable obligations under Division 2.19 relating to the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; or

    (ii)      it is reasonable to disregard subparagraph (i); and

    Note Different training requirements apply depending on whether the application for approval as a standard business sponsor was made before 14 September 2009 or on or after that date.

    (g)either:

    (i)       there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or

    (ii)      it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and

    (h)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.