KFarm Produce Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by KFarm Produce Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination for the position of Office Manager under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme, direct entry stream, in favour of Mr Maninder Singh. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether KFarm Produce Pty Ltd met all the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the application was in the approved form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, and included the required certification regarding conduct contravening section 245AR(1) of the Migration Act 1958. It also had to assess whether there was a genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the nominated position under their direct control, and whether the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Furthermore, the Tribunal examined the requirements relating to the tasks of the position, the genuine need for the nominee, and the location of the business in regional Australia.

The Tribunal found that the application was compliant with the formal requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(a). It was satisfied that the business, KFarm Produce Pty Ltd, was actively and lawfully operating in regional Australia, and that the nominee's role as Office Manager was essential for the director to focus on the core farming operations. The Tribunal noted the severe impact of COVID-19 on the business and its ongoing recovery, as well as the significant constraint posed by labour shortages, particularly for drivers. The nominee's ability to arrange Punjabi drivers was identified as a substantial benefit to the applicant. The Tribunal also found no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator and confirmed a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the position was located in regional Australia, satisfying regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A).

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision approving the nomination.