Metro Transport Australia Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Metro Transport Australia Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination for the position of Transport Company Manager. The applicant sought to employ Mr Parneel Datt in this role, offering a salary of $60,000 plus superannuation. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the necessary criteria for the nomination to be approved, particularly in light of certain adverse information that had come to the attention of the Department of Immigration.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Metro Transport Australia Pty Ltd had satisfied all the relevant criteria under Regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the approval of its nomination. This included assessing whether the nomination process was correctly followed, if the applicant was a standard business sponsor, if the nominee was properly identified, and crucially, whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration that could not be disregarded. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's explanation and evidence regarding payments to employees and subcontractors in response to concerns about potential cash payments and discrepancies with PAYG summaries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had met the procedural requirements for the nomination, was an approved standard business sponsor, and had correctly identified the nominee. While adverse information regarding alleged cash payments to employees without work rights had been raised, the Tribunal was ultimately satisfied, after considering the applicant's detailed explanations and financial records, that these concerns did not prevent the approval of the nomination. The Tribunal noted that the address associated with the adverse information did not match the applicant's business address and that subsequent provision of payroll and bank records showed minimal discrepancies between salary payments and PAYG summaries, supporting the applicant's explanation of employees transitioning to subcontractor status. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant met all applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.