Fair Price Furniture Gallery Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Fair Price Furniture Gallery Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination under the Direct Entry stream for the occupation of Retail Buyer. The applicant operates a retail furniture business with stores in Victoria and New South Wales, and sought to nominate an employee for the position at a base rate of $55,000 per annum. The Tribunal was required to determine 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.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the application was compliant with regulation 5.19(4)(a), specifically whether it was in the approved form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, and identified a genuine need for a paid employee under the nominator's direct control. The Tribunal also considered whether the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, and crucially, whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with them, as required by regulation 5.19(4)(f).

The Tribunal found that the application met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(a), noting it was in the approved form, no fee was payable as the position was in regional Australia, and the applicant had provided the required certification. Evidence, including oral testimony and written submissions, satisfied the Tribunal that there was a genuine need for the Retail Buyer position to service Victorian regional store locations. Regarding regulation 5.19(4)(f), the Tribunal considered allegations received by the Department of Home Affairs concerning the employment practices of Mr Yousuf Makini. However, the applicant submitted that Mr Makini was not a sponsor or nominator for the purposes of the regulations and that the allegation did not constitute adverse information. The Tribunal accepted this submission, concluding that the allegation did not fit the definition of adverse information under the regulations and therefore did not preclude approval.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant met all the requirements of regulation 5.19 for the approval of the nomination. The decision under review was set aside, and a substituted decision approving the nomination was made.