Go Logistics Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision to impose sanctions on Go Logistics Pty Ltd (the applicant) for alleged failures to satisfy sponsorship obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The delegate had considered that the applicant failed to meet obligations under regulations 2.83 (providing records and information), 2.84 (notifying of certain events), and 2.86 (ensuring sponsored persons work in their nominated occupations). The delegate's decision was to bar the applicant for two years from sponsoring more people.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to satisfy its sponsorship obligations under regulations 2.83, 2.84, and 2.86. Specifically, the delegate had found a failure to provide adequate records regarding the tasks and locations of sponsored employees, a failure to notify the Department of a change in business address, and a failure to ensure that Mr Uthuman, nominated as a Transport Company Manager, did not work in an occupation for which he was not nominated, namely as a delivery driver.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had failed to notify the Department of its change of address within the prescribed period, this failure occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, a period of significant operational pressure and growth for the logistics business, and was therefore considered inadvertent. Regarding the provision of records, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had provided the information as they understood it to be requested, including position descriptions and details of work locations. However, the Tribunal found that Mr Uthuman's occasional undertaking of delivery tasks, while infrequent and in exceptional circumstances due to the pandemic, was not consistent with his nominated occupation of Transport Company Manager and constituted a failure to satisfy the obligation under reg 2.86(2)(b). Despite this finding, the Tribunal noted that Mr Uthuman's day-to-day tasks were otherwise consistent with his nominated role.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision. It noted that the applicant was no longer an approved sponsor at the time of the review, meaning the sanctions available under s 140M(1) of the Act were not applicable. Furthermore, the Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to impose future sanctions on the applicant under s 140M(2). Consequently, the Tribunal substituted a decision not to take any of the actions specified in s 140M of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).