Austonia Trades Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Austonia Trades Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination for a Subclass 482 visa. The applicant sought to nominate an employee for the occupation of Carpenter (ANZSCO code 331212) under the medium-term stream. The delegate of the Minister had refused to approve the nomination. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had complied with the prescribed nomination process, whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration concerning the applicant, whether the applicant was a standard business sponsor, whether any debts had been paid, whether the nominated occupation and its code corresponded to a specified occupation in the relevant instrument, and whether the position was genuine and full-time. The Tribunal also considered whether the employment conditions offered to the nominee were no less favourable than those provided to Australian citizens or permanent residents performing equivalent work.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had satisfied the requirements of Regulation 2.72(3) by making the nomination in the approved form, paying the required fees and charges, and providing all necessary certifications regarding the nominee's qualifications, the genuineness of the position, and compliance with employment laws. Regarding adverse information, the Tribunal found that while the Department had previously conducted monitoring of the applicant, this had not resulted in adverse findings, and subsequent visa sponsorships had been granted. Therefore, Regulation 2.72(4) was satisfied. The Tribunal confirmed the applicant was a standard business sponsor and that no debts under section 140ZO were outstanding, satisfying Regulations 2.72(5) and 2.72(5A). The nominated occupation was found to correspond to a specified occupation in the medium-term stream under Regulation 2.72(8). The Tribunal also found the position to be genuine and full-time, and that the employment conditions offered were not less favourable than those for Australian workers, as required by Regulation 2.72(10) and 2.72(18).

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.