CIPE Group Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by CIPE Group Pty Ltd, trading as Epic Hair Designs, for approval of a nomination under the Direct Entry stream of the Employer Nomination Scheme (subclass 186 visa). The nominated position was for a Hairdresser, with the applicant seeking to employ Ms Emma Louise Willett. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the various requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the approval of such a nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine if CIPE Group Pty Ltd had satisfied all the conditions precedent to the approval of the nomination. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the application was made in the approved form, whether there was a genuine need for the nominated employee to work under the nominator’s direct control, whether the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, and whether the terms and conditions of employment offered to the nominee would be no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work. Further, the Tribunal needed to consider if there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, and if the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Finally, the court had to examine the requirements relating to the tasks of the position, the genuine need for the position, and any specified training requirements.

The Tribunal found that CIPE Group Pty Ltd had met the requirements of regulation 5.19. The application was made in the approved form with the prescribed fee, and the nominator certified compliance with section 245AR(1) of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal was satisfied that there was a genuine need for a paid employee to work in the nominated position under the nominator’s direct control, noting the applicant operated 15 hair salons, employed 122 staff, and intended to open three new salons, indicating a need for skilled staff. The Tribunal also found no adverse information concerning the nominator and a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Furthermore, the tasks of the position corresponded to an occupation specified by the Minister, and the nominator’s business had operated for more than 12 months, meeting the training requirements for Australian citizens and permanent residents.

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