Marco's Roofing Solution Pty Ltd (Migration)
Case
•
[2023] AATA 3936
•21 September 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Marco's Roofing Solution Pty Ltd (Migration) [2023] AATA 3936
[2023] AATA 3936
21 September 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by Marco's Roofing Solution Pty Ltd for approval of a nominated position for a Subclass 482 visa. The dispute arose when the nomination was not approved, leading the applicant to seek review by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under the Migration Regulations 1994.
The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the nomination complied with the prescribed process under regulation 2.73, whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the applicant or associated persons, and whether the applicant was a standard business sponsor. Further, the Tribunal had to consider if any debt under section 140ZO of the Act had been paid in full, and crucially, whether the nominated position of Roof Tiler was genuine and full-time, and if the nominee possessed the commensurate qualifications and experience.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had complied with all procedural requirements of regulation 2.73, including identifying the nominee, the occupation code, location, and proposed period of stay, and providing necessary certifications regarding employment laws and the genuineness of the position. It was also satisfied that no adverse information was known to Immigration, that the applicant was a standard business sponsor with valid sponsorships, and that no debts under section 140ZO were outstanding. The Tribunal noted that specific requirements for visa holders did not apply as the nominee was not a current visa holder. The nominated occupation, Roof Tiler (ANZSCO 333311), was found to be a specified occupation within the Short-term stream. Applying the principles from *Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP* [2016] FCA 30, the Tribunal qualitatively assessed the position and found it to be genuine and full-time.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the nomination complied with the prescribed process under regulation 2.73, whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the applicant or associated persons, and whether the applicant was a standard business sponsor. Further, the Tribunal had to consider if any debt under section 140ZO of the Act had been paid in full, and crucially, whether the nominated position of Roof Tiler was genuine and full-time, and if the nominee possessed the commensurate qualifications and experience.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had complied with all procedural requirements of regulation 2.73, including identifying the nominee, the occupation code, location, and proposed period of stay, and providing necessary certifications regarding employment laws and the genuineness of the position. It was also satisfied that no adverse information was known to Immigration, that the applicant was a standard business sponsor with valid sponsorships, and that no debts under section 140ZO were outstanding. The Tribunal noted that specific requirements for visa holders did not apply as the nominee was not a current visa holder. The nominated occupation, Roof Tiler (ANZSCO 333311), was found to be a specified occupation within the Short-term stream. Applying the principles from *Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP* [2016] FCA 30, the Tribunal qualitatively assessed the position and found it to be genuine and full-time.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0