Brown-Denarusha Pty Ltd (Migration)

[2021] AATA 4709

Brown-Denarusha Pty Ltd (Migration) [2021] AATA 4709 (29 November 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Brown-Denarusha Pty Ltd

CASE NUMBER:  1926246

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/3861062

MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic

DATE:29 November 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to approve the nomination.

Statement made on 29 November 2021 at 11:58am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – application for approval of nomination of occupational training position – genuine opportunity to enhance nominee’s existing skills – nominee employed for three years already, with no training provided – proposed training period expired – nominee’s application for training visa refused and application for permanent working visa in progress – no post-hearing documentary evidence or submissions provided – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 140GB
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 2.72A(16), 2.72B(3)(a)

CASES
Alimi v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 1520
Chow v MIMIA [2002] FCA 1429
Durzi v MIMIA [2006] FCA 1767
Lobo v MIMIA [2003] FCAFC 168
Moller v MIAC [2007] FMCA 168
Re Drake and MIEA (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Sakhno v MIAC [2007] FMCA 1492
Vishnumolakala v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 1209

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 28 August 2019 to refuse to approve the applicant’s nomination under s 140GB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) and regs 2.72A and 2.72B of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).

2. The applicant applied for approval on 5 August 2019. In its nomination lodged with the Department, the applicant indicated it was seeking approval to provide occupational training to enhance the skills of the nominee, Ms Rathnayaka Mudiyanselage Hashini Madushani Jayawardana, in the occupation of Production or Plant Engineer (ANZSCO 233513).

3. A nomination for a training position is made under s 140GB of the Act as well as reg 2.72A and reg 2.72B of the Regulations. Relevant criteria from the Regulations are extracted in Attachment A to this decision.

4. The delegate refused the nomination on the basis that reg 2.72A(16) was not satisfied. The delegate was not satisfied that the nominated program is offered as a genuine training opportunity to enhance the nominee’s existing skills as per reg 2.72B(3)(a).

5. The applicant applied for review of the primary decision on 18 September 2019 and provided a copy of the Department’s decision. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent.

6. On 21 September 2021, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant, which contained a request to the applicant to provide information in writing demonstrating that the nomination meets all the requirements of the criteria in reg 2.72A and reg 2.72B(3). The request was made pursuant to s 359(2) of the Act. A copy of the relevant part of the Regulations was included in the letter.

7. On 6 October 2021, the applicant’s representative submitted documentary evidence and submissions in support of the review application. The list of documents is attached to this decision record and marked as Attachment B.

8. On 6 October 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it had considered the material before it and was unable to make a favourable decision on this material alone, and invited the authorised person to appear before the Tribunal on behalf of the nominating business at a hearing on 23 November 2021.

9. On 11 October 2021, the applicant’s representative submitted a copy of the ASIC extract for the nominating business. On 4 November 2021, the applicant’s representative submitted a copy of an updated training plan.

10. On 23 November 2021, the applicant’s representative submitted documentary evidence requested by the Tribunal. The list of documents is attached to this decision record and marked as Attachment C.

    Background

11. The applicant company claims to be one of the leading switchboard manufacturers in Australia. The business is located at Mulgrave, Victoria. According to an ASIC historical company extract, the applicant was registered from 22 December 2009 and is currently an active business. Brown-Denarusha Pty Ltd is trading under the name of Dara Switchboards.

12. The Department records show the applicant is a temporary activity sponsor for a 5-year period from 29 July 2019.

13. The nominee, Ms Jayawardana, is a 31-year-old citizen of Sri Lanka. According to Department records, she is currently on a Bridging visa A granted on 5 August 2019. She previously held a Skilled Graduate visa Subclass 476 granted on 26 October 2017 and valid until 6 August 2019.

14. The nominee has been sponsored for training in the occupation of a Production or Plant Engineer. The occupation is listed in the relevant legislative instrument[1] as an occupation suitable for training.

    [1]     Immi 18/050; reg 2.72B(3)(b).

15. In the nomination application form, the applicant indicated that the nominee would receive general on-the-job training of 38 hours per week during the period from 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2020. As per the training/employment agreement, the nominee’s annual salary was set to be $40,000 for a position of a full-time Production or Plant Engineer.

    Hearing

16. Mr Unantenna appeared before the Tribunal on 23 November 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

17. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by video conference, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. 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 to be conducted by video conferencing.

18. Mr Unantenna is the sole director of the nominating business. He is employed at Dara Switchboards and, in his capacity of Managing Director, draws an annual salary of $120,000. As a shareholder, he also takes profit from the business.

19. Mr Unantenna is an electrical engineer. He completed a bachelor’s degree in engineering in Sri Lanka, and his formal qualifications and work experience were recognised in 2006 or 2007 by the Australian Institute of Engineers. He claims to have over 15 years of relevant experience.

20. Mr Unantenna first met the nominee in 2018. He is not related to the nominee nor members of her family. Ms Jayawardana completed a 12-week internship program and was offered full-time employment in August 2018. The business is still offering internship programs to recent Australian graduates and applicants seeking to complete a professional year in Australia in order to obtain skills assessment. Currently, the business does not employ any graduate engineers.

21. Mr Unantenna gave evidence that the nominee’s position in 2018 was that of a graduate electrical engineer. According to the employment/training agreement, the nominee’s annual salary was $40,000. When asked by the Tribunal, Mr Unantenna initially stated that the nominee’s current annual salary is $60,000. The Tribunal noted that, according to the PAYG summary provided to the Tribunal, the nominee’s salary in the 2018/19 financial year was $23,902 and in the 2019/20 financial year was $48,982.

22. Mr Unantenna changed his evidence and conceded that the nominee’s annual salary is as stated in the PAYG summary. He explained that the business employs many employees and that he is unable to remember the exact salary of each of his employees.

23. He further stated that, in addition to the nominee, the business currently employs three other electrical engineers with similar qualifications and work experience as the nominee. They are paid annual salaries of $50,000 to $55,000.

24. Mr Unantenna gave evidence that the nominee works as an Electrical Estimation Engineer. The business employed another Electrical Estimation Engineer who resigned in October 2021. His annual salary was approximately $55,000.

25. The Tribunal noted that, according to the original training plan submitted to the Department with the nomination application, the objective of the training plan was to provide understanding of electrical switch board design concepts, the overall switchboard manufacturing process and the role of Production Engineer.

26. The Tribunal further noted that the stated period of training was from 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2020 and that in addition to the proposed training period, the nominee has been employed at Brown-Denarusha Pty Ltd for an additional 14 months since the nomination application was lodged with the Department.

27. The Tribunal observed that, according to the original training plan submitted to the Department with the nomination application, the trainee may have been required to submit a time sheet of hours of training completed on a weekly basis. Mr Unantenna stated that the business did not keep any written records (such as time sheets) of training provided to the nominee since she commenced her employment in August 2018.

28. The Tribunal enquired if the nominee gained this understanding during the past three years of her full-time employment at the business. Mr Unantenna stated that, despite working at the nominating business since August 2018, the nominee did not receive any training from the business. She is still working in the same position of Electrical Estimation Engineer.

29. The Tribunal enquired why the nominee was not provided with any training during the past three years of her full-time employment at Brown-Denarusha Pty Ltd. Mr Unantenna gave evidence that the business decided not to provide the training to the nominee as there was no certainty that she would be granted a Subclass 407 visa. For that reason, the business did not find it viable to invest in the nominee’s training.

30. The Tribunal noted that the nominee was not prevented from working at the sponsoring business by the conditions imposed on her Bridging visa A. The Tribunal further observed that, despite the Department’s decision to refuse the nomination application, there was nothing to prevent the nominating business from providing training to the nominee.

31. The Tribunal noted that it has been more than 14 months since the nominee was due to complete her training. The nominee continued to work for the applicant while remaining in Australia on her Bridging visa and pending this review. She therefore has had over 26 months to complete the training at the sponsoring business.

32. Finally, the Tribunal explained that the purposes of a Subclass 407 visa is not to secure employment for the nominee and to facilitate her stay in Australia, while supplementing the sponsor’s workforce.

33. When the Tribunal enquired, Mr Unantenna stated that the business nominated Ms Jayawardana for a permanent visa under the employer nomination scheme. The nomination application under the direct entry stream was lodged with the Department on 23 September 2021.

34. Upon the applicant’s representative’s request, the Tribunal granted additional time, until 25 November 2021, to provide post-hearing submissions and other documents the applicant intends to rely upon in this review application. The representative has failed to provide any submissions or documentary evidence.

35. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

36. 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 applicable requirements in reg 2.72A and reg 2.72B are met.

    Is the proposed training genuine? reg 2.72A(16)

37. It is a requirement of reg 2.72A(16) of the Regulations that the Minister is satisfied the nominated program is offered as a genuine training opportunity for a purpose referred to in reg 2.72B of the Regulations. As noted above, this was the basis on which the delegate refused the applicant’s nomination.

38. The application form records that the applicant applied for approval of a nomination to ‘enhance the skills’ of Ms Jayawardana in the occupation of Production or Plant Engineer. In the original training plan that was submitted to the Department with the nomination application, it was proposed that the training would be general or on-the-job training of 38 hours per week. The application form states the training period will be from 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2020, and its objectives are to ‘to improve specialised skills within the manufacturing and production of electrical switchboards as required’. In the training plan itself, the stated objective of the proposed training was to:

    ·provide an understanding of Electrical switchboard design concepts;

    ·provide an understanding of the overall switchboard manufacturing process; and

    ·provide an understanding of the role of Production Engineer.

39. The Tribunal acknowledges that, whilst it may be guided by policy, it is not bound to follow it.[2] Specifically, the Courts have held that the PAM3 guidelines constitute no more than an administrative advisory guide to decision-makers in relation to the application of the Act and Regulations and that they are incapable of being elevated into legally necessary or relevant considerations. Indeed, there is judicial authority to the effect that the policy guidelines in PAM3 cannot go beyond the wording of the legislation, even where they are favourable to an applicant.[3]

    [2]     See Brennan J in Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.

    [3]     See Chow v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1429; Lobo v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 168; Vishnumolakala v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 1209; Alimi v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1520; Durzi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1767 at [49]; Moller v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 168 at [14]; and Sakhno v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 1492 at [55].

40. The Department policy requires the training to be primarily workplace-based and last for at least 30 hours per week (although this needs to be compared with the requirement in reg 2.72B(3)), and its accompanying training plan should acknowledge the nominee’s existing skill set and demonstrate how the nominee’s skills will be sufficiently enhanced by the training proposed. For training to be structured to increase the nominated person’s skill level, the duration and content (including the practical and theoretical components) should be consistent with the skill level as described in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) for the identified occupation, and should demonstrate an increase in difficulty and complexity over the course of the training program.

41. The skill levels of Production or Plant Engineer as identified in ANZSCO 233513 include:

    In Australia and New Zealand:

    Most occupations in this unit group have a level of skill commensurate with a bachelor’s degree or higher qualification. In some instances, relevant experience and/or on-the job training may be required in addition to the formal qualification (ANZSCO Skill Level 1). Registration or licensing may be required

    As per ANSCO a production or plant engineer: Plans, directs and coordinates the design, construction, modification, continued performance and maintenance of equipment and machines in industrial plants, and the management and planning of manufacturing activities.

    Registration or licensing may be required.

42. It is not necessary for a nominee to be skilled to the level outlined by ANZSCO when considering a nomination for an Occupational Trainee position. It is, however, required that the nominee has a minimum of 12 months relevant experience in the occupation in the 24 months preceding the time of nomination (reg 2.72B(3)(c)). Likewise, a skilled individual may be eligible for further training to enhance their skills provided this is sufficiently justified in the training plan and they meet other eligibility requirements as defined by reg 2.72B(3).

43. The Tribunal notes that, when assessing an application under reg 2.72B, it must be satisfied the training proposed features a documented structured training plan that is uniquely tailored to the training needs of the nominee and is for a timeframe necessary for the nominee to enhance their skills in the nominated occupation.

44. The Tribunal considered the training plan provided, the identified nominee's skill level and the ANZSCO entry for the identified occupation.

45. Documents lodged with the Tribunal in support of the application included the nominee’s Resume, which indicated the nominee had the following relevant qualifications and work experience:

    EDUCATION:

    Bachelor of the Science of Engineering (Specialized in the field of Electrical and Electronic Engineering) completed at the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka;
    Design of Electrical Installation completed at the Institute of Engineers, Sri Lanka; and
    Certificate Course in Human Recourses completed at the Management Institute of Personnel Management Sri Lanka.

    WORK EXPERIENCE:

    DARA Switchboards - Graduate Electrical Engineer August 2018 – Present
    Kolon Global Corporation - Electrical Engineer September 2017 – December 2017
    Faculty of Engineering University of Peradeniya - Temporary Instructor June 2016 – October 2016
    SAW Engineering Pvt Ltd - Electrical Engineer November 2015 – May 2016
    Airport and Aviation Services Ltd - Electronics Engineer Trainee October 2014 – January 2015
    Ceylon Electricity Board - Electrical Engineer Trainee November 2013 – January 2014

46. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the nominee has been working and studying in the field of electrical engineering since November 2013. At the time of this decision, the nominee has accumulated over seven years of relevant work experience. She has been working at the sponsoring business since August 2018.

47. According to the skills assessment letter issued by Engineers Australia on 8 July 2021 that was submitted to the Tribunal by the applicant with its review application, the nominee meets the current requirements for the occupation of an Electrical Engineer.

48. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient time since the lodgment of the nomination application on 5 August 2019 to provide on-the-job training for the nominee, and to make provision for any further identified skill deficiencies. The Tribunal notes that the proposed 12-month training period expiring on 31 August 2020 has already been exceeded by more than 14 months.

49. The Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsoring business was not prevented from delivering the proposed training to the nominee by the conditions imposed on her Bridging visa A. Despite this opportunity, the sponsoring business decided not to provide the training to the nominee as outlined in the original training plan as the management did not consider it viable to invest in Ms Jayawardana’s training given her Subclass 407 visa refusal.

50. While appreciating the difficulties in recruiting electrical engineers in Australia, the Tribunal observes that the Occupational Trainee stream program was not designed to fill labour shortages and it was not appropriate for persons whose sole intention is to undertake work. The Occupational Trainee stream program does allow the visa holder to undertake a structured and specifically tailored training program to enhance their skills, however, it is not intended for the purposes of facilitating a long-term employment opportunity, whereby skills are developed incidentally through continued work experience.

1. Mr Unantenna gave evidence that on 23 September 2021, the business nominated Ms Jayawardana for a permanent visa under the employer nomination scheme. In doing so, he indicated the applicant’s intention to employ the nominee on a permanent basis.

2. The Tribunal is concerned that the training plan was created for purposes other than enhancing the nominee’s skills as a production engineer. The Tribunal is of the view that the proposed occupational training with the sponsor was a means of undertaking work and securing employment for the nominee, rather than a genuine training opportunity.

3. By reference to the information presently before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the nominee’s stay in Australia is for genuine training purposes. Rather, it appears to be a process to allow her the opportunity to remain in Australia.

4. Having considered the material overall, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the nominated program is offered as a genuine training opportunity for a purpose referred to in reg 2.72B, in this case, occupational training to enhance skills.

5. As a result of this finding, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant meets reg 2.72A(16).

6. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicable criteria for approval of a nomination for a Subclass 407 (Training) visa as set out in reg 2.72A and reg 2.72B(3) are met, the application therefore cannot succeed.

   DECISION

7. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to approve the nomination.

   Antonio Dronjic
   Member

   
   

Attachment A – Extract from the Migration Regulations 1994

r.2.72A Criteria for approval of nomination — Subclass 407 (Training) visas 

(1) This regulation applies to a person:

(a) who is, or has applied to be, a temporary activities sponsor; and

(i) a temporary activities sponsor; or

(ii) if the nomination referred to in paragraph (b) is made on or before 18 May 2017 - a professional development sponsor or a training and research sponsor; and

(b) who has nominated, under paragraph 140GB(1)(b) of the Act, a program of occupational training (the nominated program) in relation to a holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a Subclass 407 (Training) visa (the nominee).

(2) For the purposes of subsection 140GB(2) of the Act, the criteria that must be satisfied for the Minister to approve the nomination are the criteria set out in this regulation.

Criteria 

(3) The Minister is satisfied that the sponsor is a temporary activities sponsor.

(4) The Minister is satisfied that the sponsor made the nomination in accordance with regulation 2.73A.

(5) The Minister is satisfied that the nominee will participate in the nominated program.

(6) If the nominee holds a visa, the Minister is satisfied that the sponsor has listed on the nomination each secondary sponsored person who holds the same visa as the nominee on the basis of the secondary sponsored person's relationship to the nominee.

(7) However, the Minister may disregard the fact that one or more secondary sponsored persons are not listed on the nomination if the Minister is satisfied that it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so.

(8) The Minister is satisfied that the sponsor has provided the following:

(a) information that identifies the employer or employers in relation to the nominated program, including:

(i) the location and contact details of each employer; and

(ii) if the sponsor and the employer are not the same person - the relationship between the sponsor and the employer;

(b) information that identifies the location or locations where the nominated program will be carried out;

(c) information that identifies each member of the family unit of the nominee who holds, or proposes to apply for, the same visa as the nominee on the basis of satisfying the secondary criteria.

(9) For the purposes of paragraph (8)(a), if undertaking the nominated program is a volunteer role (within the meaning given by subregulation 2.75(5) , employer includes the person or organisation responsible for the tasks to be carried out as part of the nominated program.

(10) The Minister is satisfied that the sponsor has certified, in writing and as part of the nomination, whether or not the sponsor has engaged in conduct in relation to the nomination that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR(1) of the Act.

(11) The Minister is satisfied that:

(a) there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the sponsor or a person associated with the sponsor; or

(b) if any adverse information is known to Immigration about the sponsor or a person associated with the sponsor — it is reasonable to disregard the information.

(12) The Minister is satisfied that:

(a) the occupational training will be provided directly by the sponsor; or

(b) the sponsor is supported by a Commonwealth agency, and the Commonwealth agency has provided a letter endorsing the arrangement for the provision of the occupational training; or

(c) the sponsor is specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister for the purposes of this paragraph; or

(d) the occupational training will be provided in circumstances specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister for the purposes of this paragraph.

(13) The Minister is satisfied that the sponsor does not engage in, or intend to engage in, activities that will have adverse consequences for employment or training opportunities, or conditions of employment, for Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents.

(14) The Minister is satisfied that the nominee has functional English.

Note: For functional English, see subsection 5(2) of the Act.

(15) Regulation 2.72B applies to the nomination.

(16) The Minister is satisfied that the nominated program is offered as a genuine training opportunity for a purpose referred to in the subregulation of regulation 2.72B that applies.

r.2.72B Criteria for approval of nomination—alternative criteria for Subclass 407 (Training) visa 

(1) For the purposes of subregulation 2.72A(15), this regulation applies to a nomination by an approved sponsor (the sponsor) of a program of occupational training in relation to a holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a Subclass 407 (Training) visa (the nominee) if any subregulation of this regulation applies.

Occupational training required for registration etc.

(2) This subregulation applies if the Minister is satisfied that: 

(a) the occupational training is necessary for the nominee to obtain registration, membership or licensing in Australia, or in the home country of the nominee, in relation to the occupation of the nominee; and

(b) the registration, membership or licensing is required in order for the nominee to be employed in the occupation of the nominee in Australia, or in the home country of the nominee; and

(c) the duration of the occupational training is necessary for the nominee to obtain registration, membership or licensing in Australia, or in the home country of the nominee, in relation to the occupation of the nominee, taking into account the prior experience of the nominee; and

(d) the occupational training is workplace based; and

(e) the nominee has appropriate qualifications and experience to undertake the occupational training.

Occupational training to enhance skills

(3) This subregulation applies if the Minister is satisfied that: 

(a) the occupational training is:

(i) a structured workplace training program; and 

(ii) specifically tailored to the training needs of the nominee; and

(iii) of a duration that meets the specific training needs of the nominee; and

(b) the occupational training is in relation to an occupation specified, with its corresponding 6-digit code, by the Minister in a legislative instrument made for the purposes of this paragraph. 

(ba) the occupation is applicable to the nominee in accordance with the specification of the occupation; and

(c) the nominee has the equivalent of at least 12 months of full-time experience in the occupation to which the occupational training relates in the 24 months immediately preceding the time of the nomination.

(3A) The Minister may, in an instrument made for the purposes of paragraph (3)(b), specify any matters for the purposes of specifying the applicability of occupations to nominees as mentioned in paragraph (3)(ba), including (without limitation) matters relating to any of the following:

(a) the person who nominated the program of occupational training;

(b) the nominee;

(c) the occupation;

(d) the program of occupational training;

(e) the circumstances in which the occupation is undertaken;

(t) the circumstances in which the program of occupational training is undertaken.

Occupational training for capacity building overseas - overseas qualification

(4) This subregulation applies if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a) the nominee is required to complete a period of no more than 6 months of practical experience, research or observation to obtain a qualification from a foreign educational institution; and

(b) the occupational training is a structured workplace-based training program specifically tailored to the training needs of the nominee.

Occupational training for capacity building overseas - government support

(5) This subregulation applies if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a) the occupational training is supported by a government agency, or by the government of a foreign country that is the home country of the nominee; and

(b) the occupational training is a structured workplace-based training program that is:

(i) specifically tailored to the training needs of the nominee; and

(ii) of a duration that meets the specific training needs of the nominee.

Occupational training for capacity building overseas - professional development

(6) This subregulation applies if the Minister is satisfied that: 

(a) the nominee:

(i) has an overseas employer; and

(ii) is in a managerial or professional position in relation to the overseas employer; and

(b) the occupational training is relevant to, and consistent with, the development of the managerial or professional skills of the nominee; and

(c) the occupational training will provide skills and expertise relevant to, and consistent with, the business of the overseas employer of the nominee; and

(d) the primary form of the occupational training is the provision of face-to-face teaching in a classroom or similar environment

Attachment B: Document List

On 6 October 2021, the applicant’s representative provided the Tribunal with the following documentation:

·Submissions from the applicant’s representative dated 5 October 2021

·Engineers Australia skills assessment letter dated 8 July 2021

·PTE Score issued 29 September 2019

·Organisation Chart (November 2020)

·Nominee’s CV

·Organisation chart (September 2021)

·Nominee’s academic transcript

·Letter from Kolon Global Corporation dated 22 December 2017

·Letter from Airport and Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) Limited dated 9 June 2015

·Nominee’s bachelor of the science of engineering certificate

·Letter from SAW Engineering dated 31 May 2016

·Review applicant’s passport

·Nominee’s passport.

Attachment C: Document List

On 23 November 2021, the applicant’s representative provided the Tribunal with the following documentation:

·PAYG payment summary for the years ending 30 June 2019 and 30 June 2020

·Income Statement for the year 2020 to 2021

·Balance Sheet as at 30 June 2019

·Balance sheet as at 31 July 2020

·Income statement for the year ended 30 June 2019

·Income statement for the year ended 30 June 2020

·Review applicant’s CV

·Document titled “Annual Accounts” for the year ended 30 June 2019

·Document titled “Annual Accounts” for the year ended 30 June 2020.