EasiVisa Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by EasiVisa Pty Ltd for approval of a nominated position under the Direct Entry stream of the Employer Nomination scheme. The core dispute revolved around whether the nominated position met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the term of employment and the financial capacity of the nominator. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the decision to refuse the nomination should be set aside.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of 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 the position was not a labour-hire arrangement, and crucially, whether the term of employment met the specified criteria, including the absence of an express exclusion of the possibility of extension. The Tribunal also considered the nominator's financial capacity, although this was not explicitly detailed as a point of contention in the provided text.

The Tribunal found that the application met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(a), (b), and (c). In relation to regulation 5.19(4)(d), which requires the employee to be employed for at least two years and for the terms of employment not to expressly exclude an extension, the Tribunal considered an updated employment agreement and submissions from the applicant. Despite the contract not specifying a minimum term of two years, the applicant intended to employ the nominee for at least that period. The Tribunal was satisfied that this intention, coupled with the absence of an express exclusion of extension, met the regulatory requirement.

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