Ausia Holdings Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning Ausia Holdings Pty Ltd's employer nomination for a Marketing Specialist position under the Direct Entry stream. The core dispute revolved around whether the nominator, Ausia Holdings Pty Ltd, met all the requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the approval of the nominated position.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the application complied with the prescribed form and fee requirements, if the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, and if the nominated position was not for labour hire. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to assess whether the nominee would be employed for at least two years, if the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those offered to Australian citizens or permanent residents, and if there was no adverse information known to Immigration, or if such information was reasonable to disregard. Finally, the Tribunal had to consider the nominator's compliance with workplace relations laws and whether the tasks of the position corresponded to an eligible occupation and met specific training requirements.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that Ausia Holdings Pty Ltd had satisfied all the relevant requirements of regulation 5.19(4). The application was compliant, the business was actively and lawfully operating as a travel agency, and the position was not a labour hire arrangement. The Tribunal accepted evidence demonstrating a genuine need for the Marketing Specialist role, noting the nominee's continuous employment since 2014. It was satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment were appropriate and that there was no adverse information or satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the tasks of the nominated position corresponded to the occupation of Marketing Specialist and that the nominator met the training requirements under Training Benchmark B.

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