Australasian Hail Network Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision by the Department of Home Affairs concerning the nomination of a position by Australasian Hail Network Pty Ltd for a Subclass 482 visa. The applicant sought approval for the nomination of an Accountant (General) position under the Medium-term stream. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position and the applicant's circumstances met the various regulatory requirements for such a nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had complied with the prescribed nomination process under regulation 2.73, if there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the applicant or associated persons, if the applicant was a standard business sponsor, and if any debts under section 140ZO of the Act had been paid. Further issues included whether the nominated occupation and its code corresponded to the relevant legislative instrument, whether the position was genuine and full-time, and whether the employment conditions offered to the nominee were no less favourable than those for an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had complied with the procedural requirements of regulation 2.73, including the use of the approved form, payment of the training contribution charge, and the identification of the nominee and occupation details. It was satisfied that no adverse information was known to Immigration, that the applicant was a valid standard business sponsor, and that no relevant debts were outstanding. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the nominated occupation of Accountant (General) was specified in the relevant instrument, that the position was genuine and full-time, and that the employment conditions offered were not less favourable than those for an Australian worker. The Tribunal also noted that specific requirements relating to previous visa holders did not apply as the nominee had not previously held a Subclass 457 or 482 visa.

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