Crotty Dental (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for approval of a nominated position under the Direct Entry stream of the Employer Nomination scheme. The applicant, Crotty Dental, sought approval for a nominated position of Dentist (ANZSCO 252312). The decision under review had been set aside by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met all the requirements for approval of the nomination as set out in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the application was compliant, if the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, if there was a genuine need for the nominated position, and if the position could not be filled by a local Australian citizen or permanent resident. The Tribunal also considered whether the tasks of the position corresponded to the specified occupation and if a regional certifying body had provided the necessary advice.

The Tribunal found that the application met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4). It was satisfied that the application was in the approved form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, and included the required certification. Evidence, including PAYG payment summaries and employment contracts, demonstrated a genuine need for the nominated Dentist position and that the visa applicant was employed in that role under the nominator's direct control. The Tribunal was also satisfied that Crotty Dental was actively and lawfully operating a dental practice in Hobart, supported by financial statements, GST returns, and promotional materials. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no adverse information known to Immigration regarding the nominator and that the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that the position was located in regional Australia (Hobart), there was a genuine need for the position, it could not be filled by a local Australian, the tasks corresponded to the specified occupation, and the Tasmanian Department of State Growth, as the regional certifying body, had advised it was satisfied with the relevant matters.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision approving the nomination.