KBA Global Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by KBA Global Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination under the Direct Entry stream of the Temporary Skills Shortage (TSS) visa program. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the nomination met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The core of the dispute revolved around whether there was a genuine need for the nominated position of Personal Assistant and whether the nominator had made sufficient efforts to recruit an Australian citizen or permanent resident for the role.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether the nominator, KBA Global Pty Ltd, had demonstrated a genuine need to employ the visa applicant as a Personal Assistant, a position aligned with ANZSCO 521111, Skill Level 3. This involved scrutinising the evidence presented regarding the rapidly expanding international immigration and education business, its location in Darwin, and the challenges of recruitment in regional areas. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the nominator had met the requirements concerning the genuineness of the position, the recruitment processes undertaken, and the absence of adverse information concerning the nominator or the applicant.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the difficulties in recruiting suitably qualified Personal Assistants in regional locations like Darwin, particularly given climatic conditions. It accepted evidence of the nominator's recruitment efforts, including advertising on Seek and utilising local networks, which yielded few suitable local applicants. The Tribunal found that the visa applicant was the only suitable candidate residing in Darwin, with other applicants being from interstate or offshore. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws and that there was no adverse information known to Immigration.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that KBA Global Pty Ltd had met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4) for the approval of the nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision under review and substituted a decision approving the nomination.