Equanimity Consultants Pty Ltd (Migration)

Equanimity Consultants Pty Ltd (Migration) [2021] AATA 4483 (1 November 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Equanimity Consultants Pty Ltd
CASE NUMBER:  1831705
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/525523
MEMBER:Karen McNamara
DATE:1 November 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.

Statement made on 01 November 2021 at 5:25pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – application for approval of nomination of position – direct entry nomination stream – financial capacity to employ nominee for 2 years – financial statements and related documents – goodwill based on amount offered by prospective purchaser – reduced business operations during COVID-19 restrictions – nominee employed for almost 5 years and in nominated position for almost 4 – value to business – information known to department not ‘adverse’ as defined – joint hearing with review of refusal of related visa application – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359AA
Migration Regulation 1994 (Cth), rr 1.13A, 1.13B, 2.57, 5.19
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 12 October 2018 to reject the application by Equanimity Consultants Pty Ltd (the applicant) for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under reg 5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).
The applicant applied for approval on 31 January 2018. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in reg 5.19 of the Regulations which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream (reg 5.19(3)) and a Direct Entry nomination stream (reg 5.19(4)). If the application is made in accordance with reg 5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met then the application must be refused: reg 5.19(5).
In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Direct Entry nomination stream.
The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy r.5.19(4)(d)(i) of the Regulations, because the delegate was not satisfied, that the applicant demonstrated the financial capacity to be able to pay the full-time salary for the nominated position for at least 2 years.
The applicant applied to the Tribunal on 29 October 2018 for review of the delegate’s decision.
On 26 October 2021, the applicant represented by Mr James Ryan (referred to below as the applicant) appeared before the Tribunal via telephone, to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Ms Yi Zheng (the nominee) in the related matter for the subclass 187 visa (AAT Case file 1833903). The related matters were heard concurrently in a combined hearing.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant and nominee. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant and nominee were given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
The Tribunal notes that numerous evidence and submissions were lodged by or on behalf of the applicant. While the Tribunal has considered all of same, only that which was considered material to its decision has been expressly referred to herein.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Direct Entry nomination stream set out in reg 5.19(4), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.
Background
The applicant is an accredited Registered Training Organisation (RTO) trading as Empyrean Education Institute and has operated since 1997. The applicant offers vocational education courses to international and Australian domestic students with focus on hospitality, commercial cookery and patisserie. Courses are also offered in disability support and community services. The applicant also operates a café at the historic Freemantle prison.
On 31 January 2018, the applicant lodged an application for an employer nomination approval for the position/occupation of Public Relations Professional (ANZSCO 225311) under the Regional Sponsored Migration Direct Entry stream. The position is located at Halls Head, WA. The nominated base rate salary and guaranteed earnings is $53,900 per annum.
The application is compliant: reg 5.19(4)(a)
Regulation 5.19(4)(a) requires that the application for approval must be in the approved form, must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and, where applicable, must include the required written certification relating to conduct that contravenes s 245AR(1). The application must also identify a need for the nominator to employ an identified person as a paid employee to work in the position under their direct control.
Based on the material in the Department’s file, the Tribunal is satisfied that the application was made on the approved form. As the position is located in regional Australia, no fee is payable (r5.37(2)(a)). The application also included written certification relating to conduct that contravenes s.245AR(1) of the Migration Act 1958, declared and signed by the applicant. Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(a)(i) are met.
In considering whether the application for approval identifies a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control, the Tribunal has had regard to the evidence before it, including written submissions and the oral evidence received at the hearing by Mr James Ryan. In support of the need for the position, the applicant has provided evidence in the form of written statements to the Department and Tribunal respectively dated 15 January 2018 and 19 October 2021, as well as oral evidence provided at the hearing on 26 October 2021.
The applicant told the Tribunal that the applicant operates within a highly competitive market and that the position has formally existed in the organisation structure for over four years. Prior to the employment of the nominee, the tasks of the position were undertaken by another employee and Mr Ryan. The business identified a need to engage a public relations professional in order to undertake direct targeting of overseas students through local and offshore agents as well as interaction with domestic job active programmes. The position plays an integral role in the management of stakeholder engagement and relations.
On the basis of the information before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that that the application for approval has identified a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position. Accordingly, the requirements in r.5.19(4)(a)(ii) are met.
As the criteria in both r.5.19(4)(a)(i) and (ii) are satisfied, accordingly the requirements in r.5.19(4)(a) are met.
Nominator is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia: reg 5.19(4)(b)
Regulation 5.19(4)(b) requires that the applicant is actively, lawfully and directly operating a business in Australia.
The Tribunal accepts on the evidence before it that the applicant operates a RTO, located at various locations within Western Australia. The applicant’s head office is located at Halls Head, WA. Based on the material provided to the Tribunal, (including financial statements, BAS returns, ASIC details and bank account statements) the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant is actively and lawfully operating a vocational training organisation in Australia and directly operates that business.
Accordingly, the requirement in reg 5.19(4)(b) is met.
Position is not labour-hire: reg 5.19(4)(c)
Regulation 5.19(4)(c) applies to nominators whose business activities include those relating to labour hire to an unrelated business. In these cases, the nominated position must be within the business activities of the nominator.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant’s business activities relate to the hiring of labour to other unrelated businesses. The Tribunal is satisfied that the nominated position is within the business activities of the nominator and not for hire to other unrelated businesses.
Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(4) (c) is met.
Term of employment of the visa holder: reg 5.19(4)(d)
Regulation 5.19(4)(d) requires the nominee to be employed in the nominated position for at least 2 years full time, and the terms and conditions of that employment do not expressly exclude the possibility of an extension.
The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy the requirements of r.5.19(4)(d)(i), because the application did not demonstrate financial capacity to pay the full-time salary for the nominated position for at least 2 years.
The Tribunal notes that contemporary evidence pertaining to the applicant’s financial position has been presented to it. The Tribunal, therefore, on the basis of this evidence has formed a different view to the delegate and accepts the evidence presented by the applicant in addressing the requirements of r. 5.19(4)(d)(i).
In considering whether the business has the financial capacity to pay the nominee, the nominated full time salary of $53,900 per annum for at least two years, the Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence before it including the applicant’s most recent financial statements, letter from its external accountant dated 19 October 2021, documents submitted to the ATO and information which show the applicant has met payroll and operating costs for the last two years.
The Tribunal examined the financial information submitted by the applicant and notes that the applicant’s 2020/21 financial statements show that the business for the 2020/21 financial year reported income of $3,954,652 with net profit of $1,460,999, net equity of $[Amount 1] including $3,370,486 retained earnings and $[Amount 2] goodwill.
The delegate in their decision dated 12 October 2018, raised concern in regard to the amount of goodwill recorded in the financial statements noting ‘I give little weight to the forecasted ‘Goodwill’ figure of $[Amount 2] detailed in the 2017 Balance Sheet of the special purpose Financial statements as no evidence has been provided to support that forecast. By excluding the unverified forecasted ‘Goodwill’ figure of $[Amount 2] detailed in the special purpose financial statement/Balance Sheet for the 2017 financial year, the equity for the 2017 financial year would be negative i.e. ($392,798).
At the hearing the applicant told the Tribunal that the goodwill was calculated on the basis of the amount offered by a prospective purchaser of the business. A copy of the letter of intent to purchase the business dated 8 August 2017 was provided to the Tribunal. By applying the delegate’s methodology in assessing the applicant’s net equity (excluding the goodwill amount), the Tribunal notes that in the 2021 financial year, the net equity of the business was $[Amount 3].
At the hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant the impact of the COVID -19 pandemic on the business. The applicant told the Tribunal that the closure of the international border has had an extensive impact on the ability of the business to attract and enrol international students. The inability to attract international students has resulted in temporary downsizing of the business’ operations in so far as the consolidation of two offices and reduction of staff.
Whilst the lockdown restrictions will have some immediate impact upon the applicant’s operations, the applicant is a well-established training provider that has operated successfully for over two decades. The applicant is confident the COVID- 19 restrictions will not impact materially in the medium to long term, particularly once international students return to Australia.
In undertaking its assessment that the employee will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years the Tribunal has also taken into consideration the nominee has been employed by the applicant since January 2016 and in the nominated position since January 2017. The applicant and nominee’s bank account statements and PAYG’s support the nominee has received regular salary payments in excess of the nominated salary amount and employer superannuation contributions have been paid.
The Tribunal has afforded consideration to the financial evidence before it and is satisfied on balance that the applicant has the financial capacity to pay the nominee a full-time salary of $53,900 per annum and maintain the employment of the nominee on a full-time basis for two years.
Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(4)(d)(i) is met.
The Tribunal has had regard to the nominee’s most recent letter of engagement dated 25 June 2021. The contract, which sets out the terms and conditions of employment, indicate that the period of employment is full time and ongoing. The contract stipulates a total salary package of $80,595 comprising of base salary $71,450, superannuation $7,145 and personal development $2,000. There is no term excluding an extension of the contract.
The Tribunal is satisfied based on the letter of engagement dated 25 June 2021 and other material before it, that the nominee will be employed on a full-time basis for at least two years on terms that do not exclude the possibility of extending the period of employment. Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(4) (d) (ii) is met.
As the criteria in both r.5.19(4)(d)(i) and (ii) are satisfied, accordingly the requirements in r.5.19(4)(d) are met.
No less favourable terms and conditions of employment: reg 5.19(4)(e)
Regulation 5.19(4)(e) requires that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.
The letter of engagement dated 25 June 2021 sets out the terms and conditions of employment and indicates that the nominee will be employed on a full-time basis (38 hours per week) with base salary of $71,450 per annum. The nominee’s leave entitlements include annual, personal, carers, compassionate, parental and long service leave in accordance with the Educational Services (Post-Secondary Education) Award 2020 and the National Employment Standards.
The Tribunal has received copies of the nominee’s PAYG/Income Statements and bank statements confirming that the nominee has been paid by the applicant in excess of the nominated salary amount of $53,900 per annum. Superannuation information provided to the Tribunal, support that the nominee is being paid superannuation. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied based on the evidence before it that the nominee will be paid in accordance with the terms of employment.
The Tribunal is therefore satisfied on the totality of the evidence before it that the terms and conditions applicable to the position will be no less favourable than those that would be provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.
Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(e) are met.
No adverse information known to Immigration: reg 5.19(4)(f)
Regulation 5.19(4)(f) requires that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or person associated with the nominator; or it is reasonable to disregard any such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in regs 1.13A and 1.13B.
ADVERSE INFORMATION – Invitation to comment
There is evidence before the Tribunal regarding the nominee (a person associated with the applicant) that may be considered adverse. In accordance with s.359AA of the Act, the Tribunal put to the applicant information before the Tribunal that suggests there is adverse information known to the Department about the nominee. The Tribunal explained that under s.359AA of the Act, the Tribunal is required to invite the applicant to comment on or respond to certain information which the Tribunal considers would, subject to the applicant’s comment or response, be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming that decision under review.
The Tribunal told the applicant particulars of the information. The particulars of the information are; there is an notation on the Department’s file in relation to the nominee Ms Yi Zheng and her partner Mr Niklas Markus Aman. On 10 September 2020 the Department received allegations that the nominee and her partner are in a contrived relationship.
The Tribunal confirmed with the applicant that the Tribunal must be satisfied under r.5.19 (4) (f) either:
(i)there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or
(ii)it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator.
The Tribunal told the applicant that this information is relevant, because it suggests that there is adverse information known to Immigration about a person associated with the nominator (applicant) and that at the time of the hearing there was no information currently before the Tribunal to suggest it is reasonable to disregard this adverse information. If the Tribunal relies on this information, it may not be satisfied the applicant meets the requirements of r.5.19 (4) (f) and as such the Tribunal may then find that the applicant does not meet the requirements for approval of the application and the decision under review may be affirmed.
The Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on this information. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was shocked by the allegations and unclear as to why someone would make these allegations. The applicant attended the nominee’s wedding and has always considered the nominee and her partner to be in a genuine relationship.
In consideration of whether the information currently before the Tribunal is ‘adverse’, the Tribunal turns to the definition of ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ as defined in rr.1.13A and 1.13B.
'Adverse information' includes any adverse information relevant to a person's suitability as an approved sponsor or nominator, including having been the subject of administrative action (including being issued with a warning) by a competent authority (defined in r.2.57(1)), for a possible contravention of the law, found guilty by a court of an offence under a Commonwealth, State or Territory, law, being under investigation, subject to disciplinary action or subject to legal proceedings in relation to an alleged contravention of such a law, having become insolvent or has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal or an assessing authority a bogus document, or information that is false or misleading.

Regulation 2.57(1) provides that a 'competent authority' means a Department or regulatory authority that administers or enforces a law that is alleged to have been contravened.
The Tribunal has considered whether the allegations fall within the definition of ‘adverse information’ and notes that there is no evidence before the Tribunal at the time of this decision, to suggest that there is adverse information known to the Immigration within the meaning provided in r.1.13A and r.1.13B.
Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(f) are met.
Satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws: reg 5.19(4)(g)
Regulation 5.19(4)(g) requires that the applicant has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that indicates the applicant does not have a satisfactory record of compliance with the relevant Commonwealth and State workplace relations laws.
Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(g) are met.
Tasks of the position, genuine need for the position and training requirements reg 5.19(4)(h)
Regulation 5.19(4)(h) contains a number of alternative requirements. These are set out in detail in the attachment to the decision but can be briefly summarised as requiring either that:
·the tasks to be performed in the position will be performed in Australia and correspond to those of an occupation specified by the Minister in the relevant instrument, the occupation is applicable to the proposed employee in accordance with any specifications made in that instrument, there is a genuine need for the nominee to be employed as a paid employee in the position, and certain specified training requirements are met; or
·the position and nominator’s business is located in regional Australia, there is a genuine need for the nominee to be employed as a paid employee in the position under the nominator’s direct control, the position cannot be filled by a locally resident Australian citizen or permanent resident, the tasks of the position correspond to those of an occupation specified in the relevant legislative instrument, the occupation is applicable to the proposed employee in accordance with the specification of the occupation, and that a regional certifying body has advised the Minister about certain matters relating to the position.
In this case, the applicant claims to meet the requirements in r.5.19(4)(h)(ii).
In consideration of whether the applicant satisfies the requirements under r.5.19 (4)(h)(ii), all subclauses r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A) to r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(F) must be met.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant’s business, which is operated by the applicant and the position are located in Halls Head, postcode 6210 which is a postcode specified in the relevant instrument as being in regional Australia, accordingly r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A) and (E) are met.
In considering whether there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ the nominee as a paid employee, to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control, the Tribunal has had regard to the evidence before it, including written statements and the oral evidence received at the hearing by the applicant.
The applicant gave evidence at the hearing that the position is key to the operational requirements of the business, in so far as the position of Public Relations Professional is responsible for developing and maintaining positive relationships with the applicant’s key stakeholders including off shore agents and placement partners. Prior to the employment of the nominee, the tasks and responsibilities of the position were carried out by Mr Ryan and a person employed to carry out marketing of the business. The position has existed in the organisational structure for over four years with the nominee appointed to the position in January 2017. The Tribunal was told that with the reintroduction of international students to Australia, the position will be responsible for raising the profile of the applicant’s Mandurah campus to attract students.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence presented by the applicant that there is a genuine need for a paid employee to work in the occupation of Public Relations Professional (ANZSCO 225311) under the nominator’s control. Accordingly, the requirement of r.5.19(4)(h)(ii) (B) is met.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the material and evidence provided by the applicant, supports the applicant’s claims that they have made efforts to fill the position locally by an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident. The applicant provided evidence that they have been unsuccessful in sourcing an experienced and qualified Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident to the position.
The Tribunal also gives weight to the RCB’s advice that the position cannot be filled locally, and advice dated 9 February 2018 from Skilled Migration WA, Department of Training and Workforce Development attesting to local recruitment attempts. On the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen/permanent resident living in the same local area. Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(C) are met.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant and nominee at the hearing, the precise tasks and responsibilities of the nominated position and how these tasks align with the nominated occupation Public Relations Professional under ANZSCO. In undertaking its assessment as to whether the tasks to be performed in the position correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified in an instrument, the Tribunal has also afforded consideration to the environment in which the business operates, the size of the applicant’s business and operational requirements and how the tasks of a Public Relations Professional (as undertaken in the nominated position) are relevant to meeting these requirements.
Having afforded consideration to the evidence before it, the Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the tasks to be performed in the position, correspond to the tasks of a Public Relations Professional. Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D) are met.
Department records show that the nominee whilst studying in Australia, attained a Master of Communication Degree from Edith Cowan University. The applicant has attained a Master of Translation and Interpretation, Bachelor of Arts - English for Finance Investment and a Bachelor of Business Administration, from University of Shanghai Science and Technology. Evidence before the Tribunal shows that the nominee has been employed by the applicant in the position of Public Relations Professional since January 2017.
Having considered the evidence attesting to the nominee’s experience and qualifications the Tribunal is satisfied that she is suitably qualified for the position and that the occupation is applicable to the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii) in accordance with the specification of the occupation. Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(h)(ii) (DA) are met.
The Tribunal notes the advice dated 9 February 2018 from the relevant RCB, Skilled Migration WA, Department of Training and Workforce Development indicating that they are satisfied regarding the matters specified in r.5.19(4)(e) and r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) & (C). On this basis, the Tribunal is satisfied that r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(F) is met.
Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(h) are met.
Based on the findings above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of reg 5.19(4) for approval of the nomination of the position in Australia.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.
Karen McNamara
Member

ATTACHMENT - EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994
5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)
…
(2)The application must:
(a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and
(aa) include a written certification by the nominator stating whether or not the nominator has engaged in conduct, in relation to the nomination, that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR(1) of the Act; and
(b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.
…
Direct Entry nomination
(4)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:
(a)the application for approval:
(i)       is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and
(ii)      identifies a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control; and
(b)the nominator:
(i)       is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and
(ii)      directly operates the business; and
(c)for a nominator whose business activities include activities relating to the hiring of labour to other unrelated businesses — the position is within the business activities of the nominator and not for hire to other unrelated businesses; and
(d)both of the following apply:
(i)       the employee will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years;
(ii)      the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and
(e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:
(i)       are provided; or
(ii)      would be provided;
to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and
(f)either:
(i)       there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or
(ii)      it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and
(g)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations; and
(h)either:
(i)       all of the following apply:
(A)the tasks to be performed in the position will be performed in Australia and correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph;
(AA)there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii), as a paid employee, to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control;
(AAA)the occupation is applicable to the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii) in accordance with the specification of the occupation;
(B)either:
(I)the nominator’s business has operated for at least 12 months, and the nominator meets the requirements for the training of Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents that are specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-sub-subparagraph; or
(II)the nominator’s business has operated for less than 12 months, and the nominator has an auditable plan for meeting the requirements specified in the instrument mentioned in sub-sub-subparagraph (I); or
(ii)      all of the following apply:
(A)the position is located in regional Australia;
(B)there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii), as a paid employee, to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control;
(C)the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident who is living in the same local area as that place;
(D)the tasks to be performed in the position correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph;
(DA)the occupation is applicable to the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii) in accordance with the specification of the occupation;
(E)the business operated by the nominator is located at that place;
(F)a body that is:
(I)specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph; and
(II)located in the same State or Territory as the location of the position;
has advised the Minister about the matters mentioned in paragraph (e) and sub-subparagraphs (B) and (C).

[2021] AATA 4483

1 November 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Appeal