Jai Sitaram Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Jai Sitaram Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination for a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme employer nomination, Visa subclass 187, in the direct entry stream. The position in question was that of Office Manager, to be employed in Beaudesert, Queensland, in favour of Mr Devalkumar Ajitkumar Patel. The applicant company was represented by its director, Mr Aniket Saravaiya. The case was heard by De-Anne Kelly.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Jai Sitaram Pty Ltd met all the requirements for the approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to consider whether the application was compliant, whether there was any adverse information known to the Department of Home Affairs concerning the nominator or associated persons, and whether the applicant had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to determine if the position met the criteria under regulation 5.19(4)(h), which involved assessing the genuineness of the need for the position, its location in regional Australia, and whether it could be filled by a locally resident Australian citizen or permanent resident.

The Tribunal found that the application was compliant with regulation 5.19(4)(a), that no adverse information was known to the Department under regulation 5.19(4)(f), and that the applicant had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws under regulation 5.19(4)(g). Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the position was located in regional Australia as defined by IMMI 16/045, and that the applicant had elected to meet the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii). The Tribunal also noted that it had complied with section 359AA of the Migration Act 1958 by providing the applicant with clear particulars of any information that might lead to affirming the decision under review, explaining its relevance, and inviting comment.

The Tribunal decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination. This outcome was reached after considering the evidence and submissions, and concluding that all relevant regulatory requirements had been met.