BAJABOARD INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a migration matter involving Bajaboard International Pty Ltd as the nominator and an applicant for approval of a nominated position under the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The dispute concerned whether the nominated position of Electrical Engineering Technician met the requirements for approval, particularly in relation to the nominee's previous employment and the nominator's business operations and sponsorship obligations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the application for nomination approval complied with the requirements of regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the application was in the approved form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, and identified a relevant person and occupation with the correct ANZSCO code. It also needed to verify that the nominator was a standard business sponsor actively and lawfully operating in Australia, and that certain criteria regarding overseas business operations were not met. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider whether the nominee had held the relevant visa and been employed in the nominated occupation for the required period, and whether the employment was full-time and undertaken in Australia. Finally, the Tribunal had to assess the nominator's compliance with training benchmarks and the absence of adverse information.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on satisfying each limb of regulation 5.19(3). It found that the application was compliant in form and fee, and that the nominee, Mr. Noccioli, held a Subclass 457 visa and was employed in an occupation (Electrical Engineering Technician) with the same 4-digit ANZSCO code as that held during his previous visa. The Tribunal was satisfied that Bajaboard International was an actively and lawfully operating business in Australia, supported by ASIC extracts, BAS statements, and financial documents. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the nominee had been employed in the position for the requisite period, fulfilling the requirements of regulation 5.19(3)(c)(i). The Tribunal also considered the nominator's compliance with training requirements and the absence of adverse information, concluding that these conditions were met or could be reasonably disregarded.

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