Jaad Holdings Pty Ltd (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 6332
•21 October 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jaad Holdings Pty Ltd (Migration) [2019] AATA 6332
[2019] AATA 6332
21 October 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Jaad Holdings Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination of a position under the Direct Entry stream. The dispute concerned whether the nominated position met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994, particularly in relation to a genuine need for the position and its suitability for Australian workers. The applicant's director, Mr. Dorkhom, provided evidence regarding the business operations, which involved a chain of retail whole food and wellbeing stores, and the specific duties of the nominated employee as a Secretary.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the nominated position satisfied all the criteria outlined in regulation 5.19(4). This included assessing whether the applicant was actively and lawfully operating a business, whether the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those offered to Australian citizens or permanent residents, and whether there was a genuine need for the position that could not be filled by a local Australian. Specifically, the Tribunal examined the requirements under regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii), which pertains to positions located in regional Australia.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented by Mr. Dorkhom and the nominated employee, Ms. Konsa, regarding the extensive administrative and operational support provided by the Secretary role. The Tribunal found that the tasks of the position corresponded to an ANZSCO skill level 1, 2, or 3 occupation and that there was a genuine need for the role within the business. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that the position could not be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident living in the same local area, and that the business was located in regional Australia. The Tribunal also noted the absence of adverse information concerning the nominator and a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision under review and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the nominated position satisfied all the criteria outlined in regulation 5.19(4). This included assessing whether the applicant was actively and lawfully operating a business, whether the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those offered to Australian citizens or permanent residents, and whether there was a genuine need for the position that could not be filled by a local Australian. Specifically, the Tribunal examined the requirements under regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii), which pertains to positions located in regional Australia.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented by Mr. Dorkhom and the nominated employee, Ms. Konsa, regarding the extensive administrative and operational support provided by the Secretary role. The Tribunal found that the tasks of the position corresponded to an ANZSCO skill level 1, 2, or 3 occupation and that there was a genuine need for the role within the business. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that the position could not be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident living in the same local area, and that the business was located in regional Australia. The Tribunal also noted the absence of adverse information concerning the nominator and a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision under review and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0