Liby Holdings Pty Ltd (Migration) [2022] AATA 1394 (20 May 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Liby Holdings Pty Ltd
REPRESENTATIVE: Ms Fang Liu (MARN: 1463212)
CASE NUMBER: 1921403
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2019/3013240
MEMBER:Deputy President J.L Redfern PSM
DATE:20 May 2022
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substitutes a decision that the nomination is approved.
Statement made on 20 May 2022 at 4:56pm
CATCHWORDS:
MIGRATION – temporary skill shortage visa (subclass 482) nomination – approval for nominated position of Poultry Farmer (ANZSCO 121321) – whether nominated position is a genuine position – profitability of business – annual earnings – consideration of Australia’s free trade obligations and labour market testing – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65 and 140GBA
Migration Regulations 1994, regs 1.13A, 1.13B, 2.72 and 2.73, Sch 2 Part 482SECONDARY MATERIALS
IMMI 13/138
IMMI 18/033
LIN 18/183
LIN 21/075
Revised Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013
Policy – Migration Regulations – Divisions (Temporary Skill Shortage visa (subclass 482) – nominations)
Free Trade Agreement Between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of ChinaSTATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 16 July 2019 to refuse to approve the applicant’s nomination under s 140GB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) and reg 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).
The applicant, Liby Holdings Pty Limited (Liby Holdings), applied for approval on 13 June 2019. Liby Holdings operates a poultry farm in regional New South Wales.
A nomination of an occupation for a Subclass 482 visa is made under s 140GB of the Act and reg 2.73 of the Regulations. The occupation must be nominated for a Subclass 482 visa in one of three alternative streams being the Short-term stream, the Medium-term stream or the Labour Agreement stream. Regulation 2.72 prescribes general and stream-specific criteria that must be satisfied for the Minister to approve a nomination by a person. These criteria are extracted in the attachment to this decision. Additional criteria are specified in s 140GBA of the Act. In this case, the occupation is nominated for a Subclass 482 visa in the Short-term stream. The occupation nominated is Poultry Farmer (ANZSCO 121321).
The delegate decided not to approve the nomination on the basis that Liby Holdings did not satisfy the criteria that the position associated with the nominated occupation of Poultry Farmer was genuine. The delegate was not satisfied that, due to the level of trade of the business, it was able to financially support the position nominated. Relevantly, it was noted that the financial statements for Liby Holdings for the year ended 30 June 2018 indicated that the business had achieved a modest income yet had incurred considerable expenses.
Prior to the hearing, Liby…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Liby Holdings Pty Ltd (Migration) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] AATA 1394
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether Liby Holdings Pty Ltd had satisfied the requirements of Regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the nomination was made in accordance with the prescribed process (reg 2.72(3)), whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about Liby Holdings or associated persons (reg 2.72(4)), whether Liby Holdings was a standard business sponsor (reg 2.72(5)), whether any debts under section 140ZO of the Act had been paid (reg 2.72(5A)), and whether the nominated occupation and its corresponding code were specified in the relevant instrument (reg 2.72(8)). The court also considered whether the nominated position was genuine and full-time (reg 2.72(10)).
The court found that Liby Holdings had complied with the nomination process as set out in Regulation 2.73, including using the approved form, paying the required fee and charge, and providing necessary certifications regarding employment laws and the nominee's qualifications. It was satisfied that no adverse information was known to Immigration concerning Liby Holdings, that the company was a standard business sponsor, and that there were no outstanding debts under section 140ZO. The nominated occupation, Poultry Farmer (ANZSCO code 121321), was found to correspond to the relevant instrument, and the court accepted submissions that the nominated role did not predominantly involve low-skilled tasks. Furthermore, the court was satisfied that the position was genuine and full-time.
Consequently, the court concluded that Liby Holdings Pty Ltd met all applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved. The decision not to approve the nomination was set aside, and a substituted decision was made approving the nomination.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
For these reasons, I am satisfied that the requirements of reg 2.72(3) are met.No adverse information known to Immigration Regulation 2.72(4) requires that either: there is no adverse information known to Immigration about Liby Holdings or a person associated with Liby Holdings; or it is reasonable to disregard such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in regs 1.13A and 1.13B. The reference to ‘Immigration’ should now be taken to refer to the Department of Home Affairs, which includes the immigration portfolio. It is submitted that there is no evidence of adverse information known to Immigration before the Tribunal. I accept this submission and I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of reg 2.72(4) are met.Nominator is a standard business sponsor Regulation 2.72(5) requires that the person making a nomination is a standard business sponsor. By letter dated 11 December 2021 from the Department, Liby Holdings was notified that its sponsorship application as a standard business sponsor was approved effective until 11 December 2026. As such, I am satisfied that the requirements of reg 2.72(5) are met.Payment of debt mentioned in s 140ZO Regulation 2.72(5A) requires that the person has paid in full any debt mentioned in s 140ZO of the Act. There is no evidence that Liby Holdings has any outstanding debt under s 140ZO of Act. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of reg 2.72(5A) are met.Requirements for existing Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa holders The criteria for approval of a nomination contain several requirements if a Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa holder is identified as the person to work in the nominated position. As the nominee is not the holder of a Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa, the requirements of reg 2.72(6) and reg 2.72(14) do not apply.Specified occupation Regulation 2.72(8) requires that the nominated occupation and its 6-digit code correspond to an occupation and 6-digit code specified in the instrument in force at the time the nomination is made, that is, LIN 19/048. The occupation must also apply to the nominee in accordance with the instrument. In this case the occupation nominated is Poultry Farmer, and the ANZSCO code is 121321. This corresponds to the occupation and 6-digit code specified in the relevant instrument. There is a caveat or condition recorded to the effect that the position “predominantly involves responsibility for low skilled tasks”. It is submitted, and I accept, for the reasons set out in more detail below, that the role nominated does not involve such responsibilities. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of reg 2.72(8) are met.Position must be genuine and full-time Regulation 2.72(10)(a) requires that the position associated with the nominated occupation is genuine. A similar requirement was considered in Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP [2016] FCA 30, where the Court (at [34]) upheld the Tribunal’s approach of qualitatively assessing the position and comparing this with the occupation nominated to determine whether it was genuine. In addition, reg 2.72(10)(b) requires the position to be a full-time position, unless it is reasonable to disregard this requirement.