Anwha Williams As Trustee For Williams Family Trust (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning a nomination made by Anwha Williams as Trustee for the Williams Family Trust. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of a nomination under the Direct Entry stream of the relevant migration regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the nomination application satisfied all the criteria stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the application was in the approved form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, and included the necessary certification regarding conduct contravening s.245AR(1). Furthermore, the Tribunal had to ascertain if the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, if the nominated position was not related to labour hire, and if the proposed employment met specific duration and terms and conditions requirements. The Tribunal also considered whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration, whether the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws, and whether the nominated position met the requirements relating to its tasks, a genuine need for the position, and its location in regional Australia.

The Tribunal's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the evidence presented against each subregulation of 5.19(4). It found that the application was compliant in form and fee, and that the required certification was provided. The Tribunal was satisfied that there was a genuine need for a paid employee under the nominator's direct control, that the nominator was actively and lawfully operating its business, and that the position was not for labour hire. The proposed employment was found to meet the duration and terms and conditions requirements, and no adverse information was known to Immigration. The nominator was also deemed to have a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the position was located in regional Australia, there was a genuine need for the position, it could not be filled locally, and the tasks corresponded to an eligible occupation, with the necessary advice having been obtained from a regional certifying body.

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