Eastern Tiger Restaurant Nowra Pty Ltd (Migration)
Case
•
[2023] AATA 305
•13 February 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Eastern Tiger Restaurant Nowra Pty Ltd (Migration) [2023] AATA 305
[2023] AATA 305
13 February 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by Eastern Tiger Restaurant Nowra Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination for a Cook position under the Direct Entry stream of the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme. The application was made in favour of Mr Yize JIANG. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the nominating business was actively and lawfully operating in Australia, and whether there was a genuine need for the nominated position. Specifically, the Tribunal considered regulation 5.19(4)(b), which mandates that the nominator be actively, lawfully, and directly operating a business in Australia, and regulation 5.19(4)(h), which outlines requirements relating to the tasks of the position, genuine need, and training.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirement under reg 5.19(4)(b) because evidence, including a Google screenshot indicating the restaurant was permanently closed and financial information dating only to FY 2017, did not demonstrate that the business was actively and lawfully operating. Furthermore, scant evidence of a lease agreement for operational premises was presented. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not attend the scheduled hearing, despite invitations to comment on a Section 375 certificate, which indicated that the regional certifying body had assessed the application as not satisfying requirements concerning employment terms and conditions and the inability to fill the position locally.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination, concluding that not all requirements for approval under regulation 5.19(4) had been met.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the nominating business was actively and lawfully operating in Australia, and whether there was a genuine need for the nominated position. Specifically, the Tribunal considered regulation 5.19(4)(b), which mandates that the nominator be actively, lawfully, and directly operating a business in Australia, and regulation 5.19(4)(h), which outlines requirements relating to the tasks of the position, genuine need, and training.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirement under reg 5.19(4)(b) because evidence, including a Google screenshot indicating the restaurant was permanently closed and financial information dating only to FY 2017, did not demonstrate that the business was actively and lawfully operating. Furthermore, scant evidence of a lease agreement for operational premises was presented. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not attend the scheduled hearing, despite invitations to comment on a Section 375 certificate, which indicated that the regional certifying body had assessed the application as not satisfying requirements concerning employment terms and conditions and the inability to fill the position locally.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination, concluding that not all requirements for approval under regulation 5.19(4) had been met.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0