Holistic Infrastructure Solutions Pty Ltd (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 2132
•9 April 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Holistic Infrastructure Solutions Pty Ltd (Migration) [2021] AATA 2132
[2021] AATA 2132
9 April 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by Holistic Infrastructure Solutions Pty Ltd for the approval of a nomination for a Subclass 457 visa. The applicant sought to nominate Ms Kimberley Lopez Loo for the occupation of Quality Assurance Manager. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under the Migration Regulations 1994.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant, as an approved standard business sponsor, had complied with the prescribed nomination process, including identifying the nominee and the occupation, and whether the terms and conditions of employment for the nominee would be no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work. The Tribunal also considered whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration concerning the applicant or associated persons, and whether the nominated occupation corresponded to an occupation specified in the relevant legislative instrument.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had satisfied all applicable criteria. It was satisfied that the nomination was made in accordance with the prescribed process, that the applicant was a standard business sponsor, and that Ms Lopez Loo was correctly identified as the visa applicant who would perform the nominated occupation. The Tribunal also determined that the nominated occupation, Quality Assurance Manager (ANZSCO 139914), was listed in the relevant legislative instrument (IMMI 17/060) and that no specific organisational support was required. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment offered to Ms Lopez Loo would be no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident in an equivalent role. No adverse information was known to Immigration.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant, as an approved standard business sponsor, had complied with the prescribed nomination process, including identifying the nominee and the occupation, and whether the terms and conditions of employment for the nominee would be no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work. The Tribunal also considered whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration concerning the applicant or associated persons, and whether the nominated occupation corresponded to an occupation specified in the relevant legislative instrument.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had satisfied all applicable criteria. It was satisfied that the nomination was made in accordance with the prescribed process, that the applicant was a standard business sponsor, and that Ms Lopez Loo was correctly identified as the visa applicant who would perform the nominated occupation. The Tribunal also determined that the nominated occupation, Quality Assurance Manager (ANZSCO 139914), was listed in the relevant legislative instrument (IMMI 17/060) and that no specific organisational support was required. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment offered to Ms Lopez Loo would be no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident in an equivalent role. No adverse information was known to Immigration.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0