Liby Holdings Pty Ltd (Migration)

The case of Liby Holdings Pty Ltd (Migration) concerned a review of a decision not to approve a nomination for a Subclass 482 visa. The applicant, Liby Holdings Pty Ltd, sought to nominate Mr Xiaoxin Han for the occupation of Poultry Farmer. The dispute centred on whether Liby Holdings met the various criteria prescribed by the Migration Regulations 1994 for the approval of such a nomination. The matter was heard by Deputy J.l Redfern Psm P.

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.