Jasagency Pty. Ltd. (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 5151
•19 November 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jasagency Pty. Ltd. (Migration) [2019] AATA 5151
[2019] AATA 5151
19 November 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by Jasagency Pty. Ltd. (the applicant) for approval of a nomination of a position under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant, trading as Sun Pacific College, operated an English language school in Cairns that catered to fee-paying foreign students, including those from Taiwan. The applicant sought to nominate a Taiwanese Student Liaison Officer to manage the needs of a growing number of Taiwanese students and to act as an intermediary between the College, students, Taiwanese schools, market agents, and local homestay families. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position and the tasks involved met the requirements of Regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of Regulation 5.19(4) for the approval of the nomination. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the tasks of the nominated position corresponded to an occupation specified by the Minister, if there was a genuine need for the position, if the position could not be filled by a local Australian resident, and if the relevant regional certifying body had provided the necessary advice. The court also considered whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration concerning the nominator or associated persons, and whether the applicant had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws.
The court found that the applicant met the requirements of Regulation 5.19(4). It was satisfied that the position and business were located in regional Australia, and that there was a genuine need for a paid employee to work as a Student Liaison Officer under the nominator's direct control. The court also determined, based on evidence of an open labour market recruitment process, that the nominated position could not be filled by a suitably qualified Australian citizen or permanent resident living in the local area. Furthermore, the court examined the position description in light of ANZSCO Category 224912, which defines a Liaison Officer as someone who "establishes and facilitates communication between different community groups, organisations and governments," and concluded that the tasks of the nominated position adequately met this description. The court also noted that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland, acting as a Regional Certifying Body, had provided the required advice. The court also confirmed that no adverse information was known to Immigration and that the applicant had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws.
Accordingly, the court decided to set aside the original decision and substitute it with a decision approving the nomination.
The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of Regulation 5.19(4) for the approval of the nomination. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the tasks of the nominated position corresponded to an occupation specified by the Minister, if there was a genuine need for the position, if the position could not be filled by a local Australian resident, and if the relevant regional certifying body had provided the necessary advice. The court also considered whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration concerning the nominator or associated persons, and whether the applicant had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws.
The court found that the applicant met the requirements of Regulation 5.19(4). It was satisfied that the position and business were located in regional Australia, and that there was a genuine need for a paid employee to work as a Student Liaison Officer under the nominator's direct control. The court also determined, based on evidence of an open labour market recruitment process, that the nominated position could not be filled by a suitably qualified Australian citizen or permanent resident living in the local area. Furthermore, the court examined the position description in light of ANZSCO Category 224912, which defines a Liaison Officer as someone who "establishes and facilitates communication between different community groups, organisations and governments," and concluded that the tasks of the nominated position adequately met this description. The court also noted that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland, acting as a Regional Certifying Body, had provided the required advice. The court also confirmed that no adverse information was known to Immigration and that the applicant had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws.
Accordingly, the court decided to set aside the original decision and substitute it with a decision approving the nomination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0