BPC Telecom Pty Ltd (Migration) [2024] AATA 2870 (28 June 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: BPC Telecom Pty Ltd
REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Thomas Peter Drakopoulos (MARN: 9357780)
CASE NUMBER: 2101198
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2020/1304832
MEMBER:Jade Murphy
DATE:28 June 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substitutes a decision that the nomination is approved.
Statement made on 28 June 2024 at 12:52pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination – approval of nominated position – Short-term stream – Sales and Marketing Manager – genuine position – ANZSCO description – undertaking duties at a lower skill level than the nominated occupation – decision under review set asideLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 140GB, 140GBAMigration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 2.72, 2.73
CASES
Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP [2016] FCA 30STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 18 January 2021 to refuse to approve the applicant’s nomination under s 140GB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) and reg 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).
The applicant applied for approval on 3 April 2020. A nomination of an occupation for a Subclass 482 visa is made under s 140GB of the Act and reg 2.73 of the Regulations. The occupation must be nominated for a Subclass 482 visa in one of three alternative streams: the Short-term stream, the Medium-term stream or the Labour Agreement stream. Regulation 2.72 prescribes general and stream-specific criteria that must be satisfied for the Minister to approve a nomination by a person. These criteria are extracted in the attachment to this decision. Additional criteria are specified in s 140GBA. In this case, the occupation is nominated for a Subclass 482 visa in the Short-term stream.
The delegate decided not to approve the nomination on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy r.2.72(10)(a) because the delegate was not satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation is genuine.
Mr Blagoja Trifunovski, Director, appeared before the Tribunal on 5 March 2024 to give evidence and present arguments on behalf of the applicant.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the criteria for approval of the nomination. The Tribunal must approve the nomination if the applicant is an approved work sponsor and meets the requirements in reg 2.72: s 140GB(2). The applicant must also have paid any nomination training contribution charge in relation to the nomination for which they are liable. In addition, the labour market testing requirements in s 140GBA must be met.
The nomination must comply with the prescribed process
Continue reading BPC Telecom Pty Ltd (Migration)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- BPC Telecom Pty Ltd (Migration) [2024] AATA 2870
- Case
- [2024] AATA 2870
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal was tasked with determining if BPC Telecom Pty Ltd had complied with the prescribed processes for making a nomination, as set out in Regulation 2.73 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This included assessing whether the nomination form was correctly completed, the nominee was identified, the relevant fees and charges were paid, and crucial certifications regarding the employment contract and the alignment of the position's duties with the ANZSCO description were provided. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the applicant and whether the applicant was an approved standard business sponsor.
In its reasoning, the Tribunal meticulously examined each requirement under Regulation 2.72. It found that BPC Telecom Pty Ltd had satisfied all procedural aspects of the nomination, including correctly identifying the occupation as Sales and Marketing Manager (ANZSCO 131112) and confirming the nominee's suitability. The Tribunal was satisfied that no adverse information was known to Immigration, that BPC Telecom Pty Ltd held a valid business sponsor approval, and that no relevant debts were outstanding. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that certain requirements, such as those pertaining to existing visa holders, did not apply in this instance.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
For these reasons the requirements of reg 2.72(3) are met.No adverse information known to Immigration Regulation 2.72(4) requires that either: there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the applicant or a person associated with the applicant; or it is reasonable to disregard such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in regs 1.13A and 1.13B. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no evidence to indicate that there is anything adverse that is known to the Department (or the Tribunal) about the applicant, or any person associated with it. For these reasons the requirements of reg 2.72(4) are met.Nominator is a standard business sponsor Regulation 2.72(5) requires that the person making a nomination is a standard business sponsor. On review, the applicant provided documentary evidence that the applicant has approval as a business sponsor, valid between 18 March 2020 and 18 March 2025. The Tribunal has also confirmed this with Departmental records. For these reasons the requirements of reg 2.72(5) are met.Payment of debt mentioned in s 140ZO Regulation 2.72(5A) requires that the person has paid in full any debt mentioned in s 140ZO of the Act. The Tribunal is satisfied on the applicant’s evidence that it does not have any relevant debts incurred pursuant to s 140ZO of the Act that are outstanding. For these reasons the requirements of reg 2.72(5A) are met.Requirements for existing Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa holders The criteria for approval of a nomination contain several requirements if a Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa holder is identified as the person to work in the nominated position. In these cases:·the applicant must list on the nomination each person granted a Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa as a family member of the nominee, unless it is reasonable in the circumstances not to do so: reg 2.72(6)(a) and reg 2.72(7);·if the Minister requested evidence that the nominee satisfies the language test requirements, the applicant has provided evidence that the nominee satisfies the language test requirements specified for cl 482.223 (if the nomination is in the Short-term stream) or cl 482.232 (if the nomination is in the Medium-term stream): reg 2.72(14). As the nominee is not the holder of a Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa, the requirements of reg 2.72(6) and reg 2.72(14) do not apply.Specified occupation Regulation 2.72(8) requires that the nominated occupation and its 6-digit code correspond to an occupation and 6-digit code specified in the instrument in force at the time the nomination is made, that is, IMMI 19/048. The occupation must also apply to the nominee in accordance with the instrument. The applicant stated in the nomination application form submitted to the Department that the nominated occupation is Sales and Marketing Manager, with the corresponding ANZSCO code of 131112. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied the nominated occupation is not subject to any applicability conditions specified in the relevant instrument.