Bridgepro Engineering Pty Ltd (Migration) [2023] AATA 3902 (22 August 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Bridgepro Engineering Pty Ltd
REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Prasad Pahalawela
CASE NUMBER: 2000478
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2019/5746397
MEMBER:Amanda Mendes Da Costa
DATE:22 August 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.
Statement made on 22 August 2023 at 2.45pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination – approval of nominated position – Direct Entry stream – Building Associate – genuine need for employment – working in the position of Supervisor for the past four years – Genuine Position Statement – certificate of the Regional Certifying Body (RCB) – Form 1404 issued by The Department of State Growth, Tasmania – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19STATEMENT 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 22 December 2019 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position under reg 5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).
The applicant applied for approval on 13 November 2019. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in reg 5.19 of the Regulations, which contains general requirements for approval and additional requirements for approval set out in three alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition stream, a Direct Entry stream and a Labour Agreement stream. If the application meets the requirements for approval then the application must be approved: reg 5.19(3)(a). If any of the requirements are not met then the application must be refused: reg 5.19(3)(b).
In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Direct Entry stream.
The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy reg 5.19(9)(c) of the Regulations because the application for approval had not identified a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the applicant’s direct control.
Via an internet-enabled audio-visual platform, Ms Alison Wheeler (the Financial and Human Relations Manager) appeared for the applicant before the Tribunal on 21 August 2023 to give evidence and present arguments.
The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold the hearing by video, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal notes that Ms Wheeler lives and works in Tasmania, where the applicant’s business is located. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not be conducted by video. The Tribunal was satisfied that Ms Wheeler, the applicant’s representative and the Tribunal could satisfactorily see, hear and understand each other throughout the hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that the…
Continue reading Bridgepro Engineering Pty Ltd (Migration)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bridgepro Engineering Pty Ltd (Migration) [2023] AATA 3902
- Case
- [2023] AATA 3902
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal was tasked with determining if Bridgepro Engineering Pty Ltd satisfied the general requirements for nomination approval under regulation 5.19(4) and the specific requirements for the Direct Entry stream under regulation 5.19(9) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing aspects such as the application's compliance with form and fee requirements, the nominator's satisfactory record of employment law compliance, the existence of any mandatory licensing for the nominated occupation, and whether the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia.
In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that Bridgepro Engineering Pty Ltd had met all the necessary application requirements, including the payment of the nomination training contribution charge. It also determined that there was no mandatory licensing for a Building Associate in Tasmania, and the nominator had a satisfactory compliance record with employment laws. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that the nominator was actively and lawfully operating its business in Australia, and that there was a genuine need for the nominated position.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a new 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
Given the above findings, the Tribunal is satisfied that reg 5.19(4)(b) is met.Mandatory licencing, registration and memberships – reg 5.19(4)(c) Regulation 5.19(4)(c) provides that if it is mandatory in the State or Territory in which the position is located for a person to hold a licence or a registration of a particular kind, or be a member (or a member of a particular kind) of a particular professional body, to perform tasks of the kind to be performed in the occupation, the identified person is, or is eligible to become, the holder of the licence, the holder of the registration, or a member of the body, at the time of application. In this instance, the relevant State or Territory is Tasmania, the relevant occupation is Building Associate (ANZSCO 312112) and the date of application is 13 November 2019. The Tribunal is not aware of any mandatory licensing, registration, or professional memberships required for persons to work as Building Associates in Tasmania. Given the above findings, the Tribunal is satisfied that reg 5.19(4)(c) is met.Satisfactory compliance with employment laws - reg 5.19(4)(d) Regulation 5.19(4)(d) requires that the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the nominator operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to employment. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant does not have a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth and Tasmania (where the applicant operates its business), relating to employment. Given the above findings, the Tribunal is satisfied that reg 5.19(4)(d) is met.Training contribution debts – reg 5.19(4)(da) Regulation 5.19(4)(da) applies to applications made on or after 12 August 2018. It requires that any debt due by the nominator as mentioned in s 140ZO of the Act, relating to recovery of nomination training contribution charges and penalties for underpayments, has been paid in full. As set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant paid the required training contribution charge at the time the application was made. Therefore, no training contribution debts have accrued. Given the above findings, the Tribunal is satisfied that reg 5.19(4)(da) is met.Actively and lawfully operating business – reg 5.19(9)(a) Regulation 5.19(9)(a) requires that the nominator is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia. The Tribunal has been provided with the applicant’s current ASIC records, recent business activity statements (BAS), company taxation returns and financial statements and other information relating to its business operations. Based on the documentation before it and the oral evidence of Ms Wheeler, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is actively, lawfully and directly operating a business in Australia. Given the above findings, the Tribunal is satisfied that reg 5.19(9)(a) is met.Labour hire businesses – reg 5.19(9)(b)