EXQUISITE TOUCH PAINTING PTY LTD (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 1535
•6 March 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
EXQUISITE TOUCH PAINTING PTY LTD (Migration) [2019] AATA 1535
[2019] AATA 1535
6 March 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered a decision to refuse the nomination of a position by Exquisite Touch Painting Pty Ltd under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination as set out in regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the nominating business had demonstrated sufficient financial capacity to employ the nominated person, an ‘Solid Plasterer (ANZSCO 333212)’, on a full-time basis for at least two years, as stipulated by regulation 5.19(3)(d)(i). The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had responded to a request for further information within the prescribed period.
The Tribunal noted that the primary decision record, which was at least two years old, did not contain sufficient evidence of the business's financial capacity. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to provide contemporary information demonstrating compliance with the nomination criteria, but the applicant failed to respond. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the nominating business had demonstrated the financial capacity to employ the nominee for the required period. As regulation 5.19(3)(d)(i) was not met, the Tribunal was not required to consider the remaining criteria.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the nominating business had demonstrated sufficient financial capacity to employ the nominated person, an ‘Solid Plasterer (ANZSCO 333212)’, on a full-time basis for at least two years, as stipulated by regulation 5.19(3)(d)(i). The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had responded to a request for further information within the prescribed period.
The Tribunal noted that the primary decision record, which was at least two years old, did not contain sufficient evidence of the business's financial capacity. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to provide contemporary information demonstrating compliance with the nomination criteria, but the applicant failed to respond. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the nominating business had demonstrated the financial capacity to employ the nominee for the required period. As regulation 5.19(3)(d)(i) was not met, the Tribunal was not required to consider the remaining criteria.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.
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