Indoz Group Au Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning Indoz Group Au Pty Ltd's employer nomination for a Café or Restaurant Manager position under the Direct Entry stream. The delegate had refused to approve the nomination, finding that there was not a genuine need for the position, particularly given the size and staffing of the business located in regional Western Australia. The Tribunal considered evidence including employment contracts, an organisational chart, financial documents, and details of other businesses owned by the nominator.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominator, Indoz Group Au Pty Ltd, met all the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if there was a genuine need for the nominated position, if the tasks corresponded to an eligible occupation, and if other regulatory requirements concerning the nominator's business operations, compliance with workplace laws, and the absence of adverse information were satisfied. The delegate's refusal was based on a lack of satisfaction regarding the genuine need for a full-time restaurant manager at the Coolgardie business, questioning the breadth of duties relative to the restaurant's size and staffing.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the delegate had concerns about the genuine need for the position, the additional evidence presented, including financial statements showing significant income and wages expenses, along with details of other businesses operated by the nominator, supported the existence of a genuine need. The Tribunal found that the tasks of the position corresponded to an eligible occupation and that the position was located in regional Australia, with a genuine need for the nominee to be employed under the nominator's direct control. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the position could not be filled by a locally resident Australian citizen or permanent resident, and that the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws and no adverse information was known to the Department.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.