BONGIORNO HAWKINS & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a dispute concerning the approval of a nominated position under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream. The applicant, Bongiorno Hawkins & Associates Pty Ltd, sought approval of a nomination for Jacopo Baldini as an Architectural Draftsperson. The delegate had refused the nomination, and the company sought review of this decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved determining if the application was compliant, specifically regarding the approved form, prescribed fee, required certifications, and the identification of a relevant person and occupation with a genuine need for employment. Additionally, the Tribunal had to assess whether the nominator, Bongiorno Hawkins & Associates Pty Ltd, met the criteria of being the standard business sponsor who last identified the visa holder in a nomination, actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, and not having met certain overseas business operation criteria in their most recent sponsorship approval.

The Tribunal found that the application was made in the approved form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, and included the necessary certifications and identification of a genuine need to employ the nominee. It was satisfied that Jacopo Baldini, the nominee, held a valid Subclass 457 visa for the same occupation (ANSZCO 312111 Architectural Draftsperson) that he was nominated for. Furthermore, the Tribunal confirmed that Bongiorno Hawkins & Associates Pty Ltd was the standard business sponsor who last identified Mr Baldini in a nomination and was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, without having met the specified overseas business operation criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination. The Tribunal noted that it had significantly more information before it than was available to the delegate at the time of the original refusal.