BRYSON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ATF BRYSON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS UNIT TRUST (Migration)

[2021] AATA 715

BRYSON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ATF BRYSON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS UNIT TRUST (Migration) [2021] AATA 715 (8 February 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  BRYSON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ATF BRYSON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS UNIT TRUST

CASE NUMBER:  1812793

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/2051220

MEMBER:Danielle Galvin

DATE:8 February 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

Statement made on 08 February 2021 at 2:13pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – approval of a nomination – Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream – occupation of Marketing Specialist – Department assessed application under Direct Entry stream – financial capacity to employ the nominee for at least 2 years – nominee sponsored by an associated entity – updated financial information – previous Employment agreement – dependence on financial injections from shareholders – decision under review affirmed          

LEGISLATION

Corporations Act 2001, s 50AAA
Migration Act 1958, s 245
Migration Regulations 1994, r 5.19

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 18 April 2018 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under r.5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

2. The applicant applied for approval on 9 June 2017. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in r.5.19 of the Regulations which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream (r.5.19(3)) and a Direct Entry nomination stream (r.5.19(4)). If the application is made in accordance with r.5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met then the application must be refused: r.5.19(5).

3. In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream.

4. The application to the Department was made by Bryson Property Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 168923402) AFT Bryson Property Investments Unit Trust (ABN 71201005634) (the applicant). The applicant company is the trustee of the Bryson Property Investments Unit Trust (ABN 71201005634). The application stated that the industry type is “Other Services”. The nominated person is Ms Zheng Zhuang, nominated for the position of Marketing Officer in the occupation of Marketing Specialist. The ANZSCO Code number was not provided. The proposed salary was $80,000 and the application stated that whilst the nominee will be working for the applicant, they will be paid by an associated entity (claimed to be in accordance with s.50AAA of the Corporations Act 2001), Brilliant Properties Pty Ltd (Brilliant). The applicant claimed to employ one professional Australian employee only. The gross payroll for the previous 12 months was stated to be $159,000 and that $5280 was spent on training Australian citizens or permanent residents. No payments have been made to an industry training fund in the past 12 months. There are 3 migrating family members.

5. The Department was provided with the following material in support of the application:

   ·Invoice dated 14/4/16 from Paul Dale Valuations and Advisory for course in the amount of $5115;

   ·Invoice dated 22/12/16 from Deepwater Cove Pty Ltd for fees for planning knowledge training for $5280;

   ·Invoice dated 23/6/15 from CCS Property Holdings Pty Ltd  for training for $3850

   ·ASIC extract as at 14/8/17for Brilliant Properties Pty Ltd (ACN 166087172) stating that the sole director is Lei Jiang and that the applicant is a shareholder;

   ·The agent made submissions to the department dated on 14 August 2017 claiming that the nominee was sponsored by the applicant from 4 September 2014 and was working full time for the employer, Brilliant, since 13 May 2015 and that Brilliant is an associated entity of the applicant. The submission further stated that the applicant holds more than 50% of Brilliant’s shares.

6. The delegate incorrectly proceeded to their decision on the basis that the application was under the Direct Entry stream. However, and relevantly, the delegate proceeded in their decision to find, that under r.5.19(3)(d)(i) of the regulations, it is a requirement that the nominee will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years and based on the material before them this requirement was not satisfied. The delegate further found that an employment contract had not been provided so that r.5.19(3)(d)(i) and r.5.19(3)(d)(ii) are not met. The delegate also found that no evidence had been provided as to the financial viability of the applicant.

7. On 24/4/18 the agent wrote to the department noting the delegate’s error in describing the application as one for Direct Entry, and attached a copy of an Employment agreement between Brilliant and the nominee, which is both undated and unsigned, stating that the salary was $60,000. The Tribunal notes that this amount is inconsistent with the amount of remuneration claimed in the application.

8. On 23 October 2020 the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide updated and current information in relation to the review application. A response in writing was required by 6 November 2020.

9. On 6 November 2020 the applicant’s newly appointed agent provided submissions to the Tribunal describing the applicant as a real estate development company and described Brilliant as the exclusive property sales agent for the applicant. The agent confirmed the applicant’s position that both companies are associated entities for the purposes of s.50AAA of the Corporation Act 2001. In support of this contention the agent attached an open letter from Ouyang & Associates Pty Ltd, accountants for the applicant and Brilliant, advising that the applicant is the trustee for the unit trust and Brilliant is the sales agent for the applicant. The letter claimed that the applicant can pay the nominee her salary for the next 2 years. The salary is not stated. The letter claimed that the applicant had a net profit (loss) of ($393,890). This loss is explained as being based on the nature of the business. The letter stated that profits are envisaged once developments are realised. It is further stated that the ATO was advised, for FYE 2019, that the applicant paid salaries of $137,989 and Brilliant of $143,880.

10. The submission also attached an ASIC extract for the applicant (ACN 168 923 402), as at 27/10/20, listing 3 individual directors, and for Brilliant (ACN 166 087 172) listing the applicant as a more than 50% shareholder thereof.

11. The submission stated that the nominated position is genuinely needed to identify market opportunities and attached a signed version of the employment contract dated 1 April 2019 with an attached schedule stating that the salary is $80,000 per annum gross. It claimed that the nominee has been working for the applicant since 9 June 2017 on a subclass 457 visa. The submission claimed that the nominee worked for the applicant and its associated entity, Brilliant.

12. The submission further claimed that the nominee will be employed on a full time basis for at least 2 years on no less favourable terms than an Australian employee or permanent resident.

13. The submission also attached the following documents:

    ·Draft tax return FYE 2018 for the trust (ABN 71 201 005 634) noting the applicant as the trustee showing that the trust suffered a loss of $250,993 and its liabilities exceeded it assets. The amount claimed for wages was $27,692;

    ·Draft tax return FYE 2019 for the trust (ABN 71 201 005 634) noting the applicant as the trustee showing that the trust suffered a loss of $393,890 and its liabilities exceeded it assets. The amount claimed for wages was $13,334. The total tax losses carried forward to later income years of $751259;

    ·Draft Financial statements for the Unit Trust FYE 30/6/18 claiming a loss in 2017 of $106,376 and in 2018 of $250,993 so that accumulated losses are $357,369;

    ·Draft Financial statements for the Unit Trust FYE 30/6/19 claiming a loss in 2018 of $357,369 and in 2019 of $393890 so that accumulated losses are $751259;

    ·Bundle Contracts of sale noting the vendor agent as Brilliant;

    ·Bundle of title searches, draft plan of subdivision, schedule of finishes, planning certificate;

    ·Draft financial report 30/6/16 of the applicant (ABN 71 201 005 634) as trustee showing a loss in 2015 of $156,082 and a profit in 2016 of $1,998,145. The trust and the trustee are both suffering losses;

    ·handwritten PAYG form for nominee dated 4/7/16 FYE 2016 stating that the payer is Brilliant and the gross payments were $60,000;

    ·handwritten PAYG form for nominee dated 13/7/17 FYE 2017 stating that the payer is Brilliant and the gross payments were $63,334;

    ·handwritten PAYG form for nominee dated 10/7/18 FYE 2018 stating that the payer is Brilliant and the gross payments were $80,000;

    ·handwritten PAYG form for nominee dated 12/7/19 FYE 2019 stating that the payer is the applicant as trustee for the unit trust and the gross payments were $13,334;

    ·handwritten PAYG form for nominee dated 12/7/19 FYE 2019 stating that the payer is Brilliant and the gross payments were $60,003;(2 tax returns for different payers for the same year)

    The Tribunal notes that final versions of the PAYG documents submitted to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) were not provided.

    ·ATO assessments for the nominee FYE 2015 noting taxable income as $18,885, FYE 2016 noting taxable income as $56,931, FYE 2017 noting taxable income as $49,003, FYE 2018 noting taxable income as $66,754, FYE 2019 noting taxable income as $9,273 and FYE 2020 noting taxable income as $33,905;

    ·bundle of emails to and from “Joyce Zheng, Marketing Officer of the applicant and Brilliant;

    ·bundle of invoices;

    ·ATO income statements for the nominee dated 6/21/20 noting the employer as The Trustee for the Bryson Property Investments Unit Trust, claiming gross payments of $86,671;

    ·letter from the applicant to the Tribunal dated 3/11/20 in relation to the employment history of the nominee stating that the nominee worked for Brilliant as a Marketing Officer on a salary of $60,000 from 13/5/15-30/3/19 and increased her salary to $80,000 from 13/4/17. From 1/4/19 the nominee began working for the applicant;

    ·Examples of similar jobs and payrates;

    ·ABN Lookup for the entity name The trustee for Bryson Property Investments Unit Trust (ABN 71 201 005 634) as at 3/11/20 and entity name Brilliant Properties Pty Ltd (ABN 29 166 087 172);

    ·Draft co. tax returns FYE 2018 for Brilliant (ABN 29166087172), the ACN was not provided, showing income of $784,521 and expenses as $893234 so a nett loss of $108,713 and salaries as $180,434;

    ·Draft co. tax returns FYE 2019 for Brilliant (ABN 29166087172), the ACN was not provided, showing income of $467190 and expenses as $555748 so a nett loss of $88,558 and salaries as $109172;

    ·draft financial report for Brilliant FYE 2018 claiming a nett loss of $108,714 and wages as $145,978 and wages (PAYG withholding) $34456;

    ·draft financial report for Brilliant FYE 2019 claiming a nett loss of $88,558 and wages as $109172 and wages (PAYG withholding) $20,681;

    ·Organisational chart of the applicant claiming that the Director & General Manager Minjie Zeng (unpaid) oversees a Marketing Manager (the nominee) and the exclusive Agent, Brilliant. A further Organisational chart for Brilliant shows that the director, Lei Jiang, (unpaid) oversees a general manager a property management department, a part time office administrator and 5 sales contractors. The property management department oversees a part-time property manager and a full time property manager. A list of employees and their salaries has not been provided;

    ·Letter from the applicant dated 5/11/20 stating that as a property development company, shareholders inject money as an initial investment, cover the company’s daily operational cost and pay staff and eventually the company will achieve income and recoup investment once the project is completed.

14. Mr Minjie Zeng, a director of the applicant company, appeared on the applicant’s behalf, before the Tribunal on by telephone to give evidence and present arguments. Mr Zeng was assisted by an interpreter.

15. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, 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 telephone. No objection to the matter proceeding by telephone was raised by the applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

16. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent.

17. At the hearing Mr Zeng stated that the nature of the business is that of a development company and Brilliant is an associated entity as the applicant is its major shareholder. He stated that the applicant has funds in the bank to pay its expenses including wages and that these funds are supplied by the director and shareholders by oral agreements. The Tribunal asked how any necessary funds were sourced and pursuant to what arrangement. Mr Zeng stated that they are listed in the financial statements under liabilities. When pressed he stated that there was no formal arrangement for the repayment of the financial injections as profits would be realised in February 2021 in the amount of 8.9M. Mr Zeng stated that the nominee had performed well so that her initial salary of $60,000 was reviewed and increased to $80,000 in 2019 when she ceased being paid by Brilliant and was paid by the applicant. Mr Zeng, whilst hopeful that this outcome be realised, was not able to confirm that such an outcome was a certainty and was therefore speculating as to the potential outcome of the finalisation of the developments which are yet to be finalised.

18. He further stated that the nominee was responsible for research in relation to proposed projects in relation to pricing and the demographic of an area and gleaning the preference of potential buyers, providing promotional materials, training of sales staff and dealing with agents.

19. It was apparent that the financial information provided to the Tribunal was in draft form only and not in a state to be submitted to the ATO, as identified in the documents themselves, and information supporting the claims of the role of the nominee was wanting. The Tribunal therefore allowed the applicant to make further submissions and provide further material to the Tribunal by 29 January 2021.

20. On 29 January 2021 the Tribunal received the submissions from the applicant’s agent. In the submissions the agent confirmed the evidence provided at the hearing that the nominee’s salary was paid by Brilliant until March 2019 and thereafter the applicant had paid her salary. The submissions also stated that the “director” (presumably of the applicant) has injected $1,170,000 into the business from July 2016 to date. In support of the submissions the following documents were provided to the Tribunal:

    ·ABN Lookup for The Trustee for BRYSON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS UNIT TRUST (ABN 71 201 005 634) as at 3/11/20;

    ·4/4/14-NSW Office of State Revenue duties statement naming BRYSON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD as for the liable party;

    ·BRYSON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS UNIT TRUST Deed (ABN: 71 201 005 634) dated 4/4/14 naming the trustee as Bryson Property Investments Pty Ltd (ACN: 168 923 402);

    ·signed and dated draft trust tax return FYE 2018 (ABN: 71 201 005 634) showing losses of $250,993, noting that “THIS PRINT-OUT IS NOT TO BE LODGED WITH THE ATO” and that it is not the final version;

    ·signed and dated draft trust (ABN: 71 201 005 634) tax return FYE 2019 showing losses of $393,890, noting that “THIS PRINT-OUT IS NOT TO BE LODGED WITH THE ATO” and that it is not the final version;

    ·signed and dated draft trust (ABN: 71 201 005 634) tax return FYE 2020 showing losses of $379,794, noting that “THIS PRINT-OUT IS NOT TO BE LODGED WITH THE ATO” and that it is not the final version

    ·Bryson Property Investments Unit Trust Financial statements FYE 30/6/18, signed by Minjie Zeng and dated 28/5/19, showing accumulated losses for 2018 as $357,369 and for 2017 as $106,376 and for 2018 showing unsecured loans in the amount of $2,172,759 and for 2017 as $1,887,153;

    ·Bryson Property Investments Unit Trust Financial statements FYE 30/6/19, signed by Minjie Zeng and dated 29/6/20, showing accumulated losses for 2019 as $751,259 and for 2018 as $357,369 and for 2019 showing unsecured loans in the amount of $2,674,443 and for 2018 as $2,172,759;

    ·Bryson Property Investments Unit Trust Financial statements FYE 30/6/20, signed by Minjie Zeng and dated 22/1/21, showing accumulated losses for 2020 as $1.120,760 and unsecured loans in the amount of $3,903,039;

    ·ATO Pre-filling reports for the nominee stating an income of $60,000 FYE 2016, $63,334 FYE 2107, $80,004 FYE 2018, $60,003 FYE 2019, $86,671 FYE 2020. Each of these reports states that “You should not rely exclusively on this report but use it to assist you in preparing your client’s income tax return”. The complete tax returns were not provided to the Tribunal;

    ·Westpac reports for an unknown account;

    ·Employment Agreements between Brilliant, as employer, and the nominee signed and dated 13/5/15 (salary stated as $60,000) and 10/4/17 (salary stated as $80,000) respectively;

    ·Recent Organisational chart showing Minjie Zeng as Director and General Manager for the applicant and head of an un-named exclusive agent for Brilliant and the nominee as Marketing Specialist on a salary of $80,000;

    ·Recent Organisational chart of Brilliant not naming the nominee;

    ·Bundle of Marketing material;

    ·Statutory Declaration on Minjie Zeng declared on 28/1/21 declaring that he is a director of the applicant and that the applicant is the trustee for the Bryson Property Investments unit trust and that he and his wife are majority unit holders thereof. He declared that he puts his money, in the form of a shareholder loan, and declared to have injected $1,170,000 into the business from 2016. He further declared that the applicant will pay back the loan after settlement on projects. He also declared that he will ensure that there is enough money for the company’s daily operations including salaries and that after settlement there will be sufficient funds to pay out all loans. The method of ensuring this outcome was not provided.

21. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to affirm the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

22. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream set out in r.5.19(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.

    Future employment of the visa holder: r.5.19(3)(d)

23. Regulation 5.19(3)(d) only applies to certain nominees (those described in r.5.19(3)(c)(i)). For this class of person, the Regulations require that the nominee will be employed on a full time basis for at least 2 years on terms that do not expressly preclude the possibility of an extension.

1. The Tribunal must be satisfied, on the evidence presented, that the applicant or its associated entity, Brilliant, are in a position to employ the nominee on a full-time basis for a period of two years. Part of this enquiry requires the Tribunal to assess the financial ability of the applicant and or Brilliant to meet the obligation to pay the salary of the nominee at the contracted rate for at least 2 years.

2. The agent’s respective submissions, the oral evidence of Mr Zeng and his recent statutory declaration are all consistent in stating that financial injections from shareholders buoy the applicant so as to meet its daily financial obligations. The reason proffered for this is that it takes time for a development business to turn a profit whilst the development is underway. It was further contended that the daily financial obligations would be met by shareholders.

3. The draft tax returns of the Trust and Brilliant show that the trustee, the trust and Brilliant are  sustaining consistent and escalating losses. The explanation submitted is that this is how development companies operate. Whilst it may be the position that this development business operates in this way, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is no legal imperative or enforcement ability as against the shareholders to compel them to meet such financial obligations. The consequence would be that without such injections of funds or a mechanism by which the applicant could enforce the payment of such funds, the applicant cannot meet its financial obligations including paying the nominee’s salary.

4. Mr Zeng’s hopeful expectation of the applicant is that the developments claimed to be underway will turn profits and all financial losses and debts will be paid from the proceeds. Mr Zeng gave oral evidence that this arrangement is not subject to any form of contract, guarantee or indemnity to make such an arrangement enforceable at law. Whilst the shareholders may be satisfied with such an arrangement, it does little to establish the financial capacity of the applicant. The lack of enforceable mechanisms in order to meet its debts and the financial material showing persistent losses means that as at the time of the making of this decision the applicant cannot establish that it can meet the salary obligations for the nominee without casual injections of cash from shareholders who, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, have no legal imperative to do so. Further, there is no certainty as to a financial outcome of the developments as they are yet to conclude and settle.

5. The most recent material provided by the applicant is that its associated entity, Brilliant, is no longer paying the salary of the nominee and it is now the role of the applicant to do so. However, the employment contracts are not with the applicant and the nominee but rather with Brilliant and the nominee. The application claimed that the nominee would be working  as an employee of the applicant’s associated entity Brilliant, which will be paying the nominee’s salary. The current position of the applicant is that the nominee is no longer being paid by Brilliant but rather for the applicant and the recent organisational chart submitted shows that the nominee is solely working for the applicant.

6. The provision of alleged supporting financial material, which is largely in draft or not in a form that would be submitted to the ATO, means that the veracity of the information contained  therein, cannot be ascertained or assumed by the Tribunal. Despite the Tribunal providing an opportunity to the applicant to provide the further submissions and or material that would confirm the financial position of the applicant, persuasive and reliable information was not provided. The nature of the documents submitted is such that they are not submittable to the  ATO and consequently a means by which the Tribunal could better assess their weight was not forthcoming.

7. Both the applicant and Brilliant are, according to the submitted financial material, running at consistent losses. The applicant has not, therefore, established that it or its associated entity have paid or can pay the nominee’s salary without the financial injections claimed to have been provided from shareholders. The applicant has consequently failed to establish that it can pay the salary of the nominee for a 2 year period.

8. Given the above findings, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(d) is not met.

9. For the above reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of r.5.19(3). The applicant has not sought to satisfy the criteria in Direct Entry nomination stream, and as such has not met the requirements in r.5.19(4). Accordingly, the nomination of the position cannot be approved. Therefore, the Tribunal must affirm the decision under review.

   DECISION

10. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

    Danielle Galvin
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  -  EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994

    5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)

    …

    (2)The application must:

    (a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and

    (aa) include a written certification by the nominator stating whether or not the nominator has engaged in conduct, in relation to the nomination, that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR(1) of the Act; and

    (b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.

    Temporary Residence Transition nomination

    (3)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:

    (a)the application for approval:

    (i)       is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and

    (ii)      identifies a person who holds a Subclass 457 … visa granted on the basis that the person satisfied the criterion in subclause 457.223(4) of Schedule 2; and

    (iii)     identifies an occupation, in relation to the position, that:

    (A)is listed in ANZSCO; and

    (B)has the same 4-digit occupation unit group code as the occupation carried  out by the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa; and

    (b)the nominator:

    (i)       is, or was, the standard business sponsor who last identified the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa in a nomination made under section 140GB of the Act or under regulation 1.20G or 1.20GA as in force immediately before 14 September 2009; and

    (ii)      is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and

    (iii)     did not, as that standard business sponsor, meet regulation 1.20DA, or paragraph 2.59(h) or 2.68(i), in the most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and

    (c)either:

    (i)       both of the following apply:

    (A)in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application, the holder of the Subclass 457 …visa identified in subparagraph (a) (ii) has:    

    (I)held one or more Subclass 457 visas for a total period of at least 2 years; and

    (II)been employed in the position in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa for a total period of at least 2 years (not including any period of unpaid leave);

    (B)the employment in the position has been full-time, and undertaken in Australia; or

    (ii)      all of the following apply:

    (A)the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa on the basis that the person was identified in a nomination of an occupation mentioned in sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(d)(iii)(B) or sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(e)(iii)(B);

    (B)the nominator nominated the occupation;

    (C)the person has been employed, in the occupation in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa, for a total period of at least 2 years in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application; and

    (d)for a person to whom subparagraph (c)(i) applies:

    (i)       the person will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years; and

    (ii)      the terms and conditions of the person’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and

    (e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:

    (i)are provided; or

    (ii)would be provided;

    to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and

    (f)either:

    (i)       the nominator:

    (A)fulfilled any commitments the nominator made relating to meeting the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and

    (B)complied with the applicable obligations under Division 2.19 relating to the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; or

    (ii)      it is reasonable to disregard subparagraph (i); and

    Note Different training requirements apply depending on whether the application for approval as a standard business sponsor was made before 14 September 2009 or on or after that date.

    (g)either:

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

    (ii)      it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and

    (h)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.