Chris Talihmanidis (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to refuse a nomination under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS) Direct Entry stream. The applicant, Chris Talihmanidis, sought to nominate an employee for the position of Sous Chef at his restaurant in Apollo Bay. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant met all the requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the approval of the nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied each of the criteria outlined in regulation 5.19(4), including that the application was in the approved form, identified a genuine need for a paid employee under the nominator's direct control, and that the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia. Further, the Tribunal had to assess whether there was no adverse information known to Immigration, whether the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws, and crucially, whether the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h) were met, specifically concerning the position's location in regional Australia, a genuine need for the employee, and that the tasks corresponded to an occupation specified by the Minister.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy each of the relevant criteria. Despite initial documentation deficiencies, the applicant subsequently provided information demonstrating compliance with regulation 5.19(4)(a) regarding the application form and certification, and regulation 5.19(4)(b) concerning the active and lawful operation of his restaurant. The Tribunal found no adverse information under regulation 5.19(4)(f) and was satisfied with the applicant's record of compliance with workplace relations laws under regulation 5.19(4)(g), supported by evidence of superannuation payments and workers' compensation. Critically, the Tribunal found that the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii) were met, establishing that the position was located in regional Australia, there was a genuine need for a Sous Chef, and the tasks corresponded to a specified occupation.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.