Kempo Ryu Pty Ltd (Migration)

Case

[2022] AATA 4504

21 October 2022


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Kempo Ryu Pty Ltd (Migration) [2022] AATA 4504 [2022] AATA 4504 21 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning a migration matter involving Kempo Ryu Pty Ltd, trading as World Martial Arts Championships. The dispute centred on the approval of a nominated position under the Direct Entry stream of the Employer Nomination scheme. The applicant sought to employ an individual as an Organisation and Methods Analyst to manage their operations in Brazil.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nominated position under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the application was in the approved form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, and included the necessary certification regarding conduct contravening s 245AR(1) of the Act. Crucially, the Tribunal also had to assess whether the applicant genuinely identified a need to employ a paid employee to work in the nominated position under their direct control.

The Tribunal reasoned that the application satisfied the formal requirements, including being in the approved form and having the prescribed fee waived. It was also satisfied that the applicant had provided the required certification. The Tribunal found that the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need for a paid employee to fill the position of Organisational Management Facilitator (ANZSCO Organisation and Methods Analyst 224712) within their business, particularly in relation to establishing and managing operations in Brazil. The Tribunal concluded that all requirements of regulation 5.19(4) were met.

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

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Jurisdiction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

0