McCawley Construction Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision regarding an employer nomination for a Subclass 482 visa under the medium-term stream. The applicant, McCawley Construction Pty Ltd, sought approval of a nominated position for a Carpenter. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the various legislative criteria for the approval of the nomination, including requirements related to the nominated occupation, sponsorship, and labour market testing.

The Tribunal was required to determine if McCawley Construction Pty Ltd met the criteria for approval of the nomination under section 140GB(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant was an approved work sponsor, had paid applicable charges, and had complied with labour market testing requirements. Further, it needed to consider whether the nominated occupation, Carpenter (ANZSCO 331212), was specified in the relevant legislative instrument (IMMI LIN19/048) and if the nominee met any applicable visa holder requirements.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had complied with the prescribed nomination process under regulation 2.72(3) and 2.73, correctly identifying the occupation and nominee for the Subclass 482 visa medium-term stream. It was satisfied that the application was made on the approved form, the fee and nomination training contribution charge were paid, and the applicant was a standard business sponsor. Crucially, the Tribunal determined there was no adverse information known to the Department or the Tribunal about the applicant or associated persons, satisfying regulation 2.72(4). As the nominee was not a Subclass 457 or 482 visa holder, certain additional requirements under regulations 2.72(6) and 2.72(14) did not apply. The nominated occupation of Carpenter was found to correspond to the specified occupation in LIN 19/048.

Having considered all the available information and documentation, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the original decision and substitute a decision approving the nomination.