Bezcom Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Bezcom Pty Ltd for approval of a nominated position under the Direct Entry stream of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Bezcom Pty Ltd met all the requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) for the nomination to be approved.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the application was compliant with form and fee requirements, whether the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, and whether the nominated position was not a labour-hire arrangement. Further issues involved assessing whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration concerning the nominator, whether the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws, and crucially, whether the nominated position met the criteria relating to its location in regional Australia, a genuine need for a paid employee under the nominator's direct control, and its correspondence to an occupation specified in the relevant legislative instrument.

The Tribunal found that Bezcom Pty Ltd had satisfied all the requirements of regulation 5.19(4). The application was made in the approved form, and as the nominated position was in regional Australia, no application fee was payable. Evidence presented, including company registration, ASIC extracts, Business Activity Statements, franchise and lease agreements, and invoices, demonstrated that the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business. The Tribunal was satisfied that the nominated position was not a labour-hire arrangement and that there was no adverse information known to Immigration. Furthermore, the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Critically, the Tribunal determined that the position was located in regional Australia, there was a genuine need for a paid employee under the nominator's direct control, and the tasks corresponded to a specified occupation, fulfilling the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii).

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