HANMAUM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a nomination application made by Hanmaum Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Hanawon, for the occupation of Conference and Event Organiser. The nominated employee was Ms Eun Mi Kim. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Direct Entry stream, as stipulated by regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the nomination application satisfied all the criteria outlined in regulation 5.19(4). This included assessing whether the application was in the approved form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, and included the necessary certification regarding conduct contravening section 245AR(1) of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to ascertain if the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, if the position was not a labour-hire arrangement, if there was no adverse information known to Immigration, and if the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Finally, the Tribunal needed to examine the requirements relating to the genuine need for the position, the correspondence of the position's tasks with an eligible occupation, and the advice from a regional certifying body, particularly concerning the location of the position in regional Australia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal systematically addressed each subregulation of 5.19(4). It found that the application was compliant in form and fee, and that the necessary certifications were provided. The Tribunal accepted that Hanmaum Australia Pty Ltd was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia and that there was no evidence to suggest the position was for labour hire. It also noted the absence of adverse information known to Immigration and accepted that the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Crucially, the Tribunal considered the evidence, including advice from the Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Queensland, and the detailed duties of the nominated position, to conclude that the requirements under regulation 5.19(4)(h) were met, specifically in relation to the genuine need for the position in regional Australia and its alignment with the nominated occupation.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.