Modern Sky Pty Ltd (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 5188
•31 October 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Modern Sky Pty Ltd (Migration) [2018] AATA 5188
[2018] AATA 5188
31 October 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision by a delegate of the Minister to refuse a nomination application made by Modern Sky Pty Ltd. The applicant sought to nominate Mr. Chohaili Subbi, a citizen of Iran, for the occupation of Master Jeweller. The delegate's refusal was based on the applicant's failure to provide a signed employment contract as required by regulation 2.72(10)(h)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had met the criteria for the approval of the nomination, specifically concerning the provision of an employment contract and the financial capacity to pay the nominee. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied the requirements of section 140GB(2) of the Act and regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination. The Tribunal noted that while the applicant had provided information about the proposed salary and the nominee's extensive experience, it had failed to provide a signed employment contract despite being requested to do so. Regulation 2.72(10)(h)(i) mandates that the employer must engage the nominated visa holder as an employee under a written contract of employment and provide a copy to the Minister. The Tribunal found that this requirement had not been met. The Tribunal also considered evidence regarding the applicant's business and the perceived difficulty in finding a suitably qualified Master Jeweller locally, but this did not override the specific regulatory requirement for a contract.
Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had met the applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved and therefore affirmed the decision under review.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had met the criteria for the approval of the nomination, specifically concerning the provision of an employment contract and the financial capacity to pay the nominee. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied the requirements of section 140GB(2) of the Act and regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination. The Tribunal noted that while the applicant had provided information about the proposed salary and the nominee's extensive experience, it had failed to provide a signed employment contract despite being requested to do so. Regulation 2.72(10)(h)(i) mandates that the employer must engage the nominated visa holder as an employee under a written contract of employment and provide a copy to the Minister. The Tribunal found that this requirement had not been met. The Tribunal also considered evidence regarding the applicant's business and the perceived difficulty in finding a suitably qualified Master Jeweller locally, but this did not override the specific regulatory requirement for a contract.
Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had met the applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved and therefore affirmed the decision under review.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0