Jason Bacic (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a migration matter involving Jason Bacic. The dispute concerned the approval of a nominated position under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination as set out in regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to assess whether the applicant satisfied each of the specific requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(3). This included examining whether the application was in the approved form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, and identified a relevant person and occupation. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to determine if the nominator was a standard business sponsor actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, and if they met certain overseas business operation criteria. Crucially, the Tribunal needed to ascertain if the nominee had been employed full-time in Australia in the nominated position for at least two of the three years preceding the nomination application, and if they would continue to be employed full-time for at least two years under terms that did not preclude an extension. Finally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the terms and conditions of employment for the nominated position were no less favourable than those offered to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had met the requirements of regulation 5.19(3)(a) concerning the application form, fee, and identification of a relevant person and occupation. It also found that the nominator satisfied the criteria under regulation 5.19(3)(b) as a standard business sponsor. The Tribunal was satisfied that the nominee met the employment requirements under regulation 5.19(3)(c) and (d), having been employed full-time for at least two of the preceding three years and having future full-time employment for at least two years on terms that did not expressly preclude an extension. The Tribunal's reasoning focused on applying the specific wording of each sub-regulation to the evidence presented.

The Tribunal decided to set aside the original decision and substitute it with a decision approving the nomination.