Capa Petridis Pty Ltd Atf The Petridis Family Trust (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning a nomination application made by Capa Petridis Pty Ltd Atf The Petridis Family Trust (the applicant) for a Café/Restaurant Manager position. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Direct Entry stream of the relevant migration regulations. Mr Petridis, representing the applicant, provided evidence regarding the nature and history of the business, My Café, its operational status, and the genuine need for a manager to allow him to focus on other business interests. He also highlighted the nominee's qualifications and contributions to the business, drawing parallels with a previously approved nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied all the criteria stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the approval of a nominated position. Specifically, this involved assessing whether the application was in the approved form, whether there was a genuine need for the nominee to be employed under the nominator's direct control, whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator, and whether the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. A key issue was also whether the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h) were met, particularly concerning the genuine need for the position and its location within regional Australia.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(a) by submitting the application in the approved form with the requisite fee and certification. It was also satisfied that there was no adverse information known to Immigration concerning the nominator, and that the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws, satisfying regulations 5.19(4)(f) and (g) respectively. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii) was applicable, as the business was located in Canberra, ACT, which is classified as regional Australia. The Tribunal was persuaded by the evidence that there was a genuine need for the nominee to be employed under the nominator's direct control, given Mr Petridis's other business commitments and the nominee's responsibilities in managing the day-to-day operations and contributing to the business's recovery post-COVID-19.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.