Glasstech (Aus) Pty Limited (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Glasstech (Aus) Pty Limited for approval of a nomination for a metal fabricator position under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream. The delegate of the Minister had refused to approve the nomination, citing adverse information concerning Glasstech, specifically that it had previously been barred as a sponsor. Glasstech argued that the applicant for the visa had applied before the bar was imposed and that the circumstances leading to the bar had been rectified. The case was heard by Senior Member Kate Millar.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable to disregard the adverse information known to Immigration regarding Glasstech's previous bar as a sponsor, as required by Regulation 2.72(9) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This regulation mandates that a nomination can only be approved if there is no adverse information known about the applicant sponsor, or if any such information can be reasonably disregarded. The Tribunal also considered whether Glasstech met the other prescribed criteria for the approval of a nomination, including being a standard business sponsor and having complied with the nomination process.

The Tribunal acknowledged that adverse information existed, as Glasstech had indeed been barred as a sponsor. However, it considered the evidence presented by Glasstech regarding the rectification of the issues that led to the bar, the impact of the bar on the business, and the fact that the visa applicant had applied prior to the imposition of the bar. The Tribunal was satisfied that Glasstech genuinely operated its business and that without skilled overseas workers, it would be unable to continue, leading to the loss of employment for Australian citizens and permanent residents. The Tribunal found that Glasstech had taken steps to rectify the defects identified and that it was reasonable to disregard the adverse information in these circumstances. The Tribunal also found that there was no suitable qualified Australian citizen or permanent resident available to fill the position, satisfying the labour market testing requirements.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision that the nomination be approved.