Monsterella Pty Ltd (Migration) [2024] AATA 768 (2 April 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Monsterella Pty Ltd
REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Allan James Hodder (MARN: 9250840)
CASE NUMBER: 2105853
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2020/1810515
MEMBER:P. Maishman
DATE:2 April 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substitutes a decision that the nomination is approved.
Statement made on 02 April 2024 at 3:53pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – approval of a nomination – Medium-term stream – occupation of Chef – genuine position – full service restaurant – presentation of gluten free dishes – financial business growth – employment conditions no less favourable – job advertisements – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Act 2018, s 7
Migration Act 1958, ss 140, 245, 360
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Regulations 2018
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 1.13, 2.57, 2.72, 2.73, 5.42CASES
Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP [2016] FCA 30
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 15 April 2021 to refuse to approve the applicant’s nomination under s 140GB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) and reg 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).
The applicant applied for approval on 27 June 2020. A nomination of an occupation for a Subclass 482 visa is made under s 140GB of the Act and reg 2.73 of the Regulations. The occupation must be nominated for a Subclass 482 visa in one of three alternative streams: the Short-term stream, the Medium-term stream or the Labour Agreement stream. Regulation 2.72 prescribes general and stream-specific criteria that must be satisfied for the Minister to approve a nomination by a person. These criteria are extracted in the attachment to this decision. Additional criteria are specified in s 140GBA. In this case, the occupation of Chef (ANZSCO 351311) is nominated for a Subclass 482 visa in the Medium-term stream.
The delegate decided not to approve the nomination on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy reg 2.72(10) because the delegate was not satisfied that the position associated with the occupation was genuine.
In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the visa applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s 360(2)(a) of the Act.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the criteria for approval of the nomination. The Tribunal must approve the nomination if the applicant is an approved work sponsor and meets the requirements in reg 2.72: s 140GB(2). The applicant must also have paid…
Continue reading Monsterella Pty Ltd (Migration)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Monsterella Pty Ltd (Migration) [2024] AATA 768
- Case
- [2024] AATA 768
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal was required to determine if Monsterella Pty Ltd, as the nominator, satisfied all the applicable requirements under regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This included assessing whether the nomination was made in accordance with the prescribed process, whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the applicant, if the applicant was a standard business sponsor, and if any debts under section 140ZO of the Act had been paid. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider specific criteria relating to the nominated occupation, including its correspondence with specified occupations in the relevant instrument, and whether the position itself was genuine and full-time, with employment conditions no less favourable than those for Australian workers.
The Tribunal's reasoning focused on systematically addressing each criterion outlined in regulation 2.72. It found that the nomination had been lodged correctly, using the approved form and fee, and that the applicant was an approved standard business sponsor. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that no adverse information was known to Immigration concerning the applicant, and that the nominated occupation of Chef was listed in the relevant instrument (LIN 19/048). The Tribunal also noted that the nominee was not a current holder of a Subclass 457 or 482 visa, meaning certain specific requirements related to existing visa holders did not apply. Having found that all applicable criteria were met, the Tribunal concluded that the nomination should be approved.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
For these reasons, the requirements of reg 2.72(3) are met.No adverse information known to Immigration Regulation 2.72(4) requires that either: there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the applicant or a person associated with the applicant; or it is reasonable to disregard such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in regs 1.13A and 1.13B. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that suggests, and the applicant submits, that it has not been subject to monitoring by the Department and/or that it is subject to any investigation about possible contravention of laws. The Tribunal is not aware of any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or person associated with the nominator. For these reasons, the requirements of reg 2.72(4) are met.Nominator is a standard business sponsor Regulation 2.72(5) requires that the person making a nomination is a standard business sponsor. The applicant is a standard business sponsor as evidenced by a copy of the Department’s notification of its approval as a standard business sponsor from 20 September 2019 effective until 20 September 2024. For these reasons the requirements of reg 2.72(5) are met.Payment of debt mentioned in s 140ZO Regulation 2.72(5A) requires that the person has paid in full any debt mentioned in s 140ZO of the Act. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that indicates the applicant has any outstanding debt under s 140ZO. For these reasons, the requirements of reg 2.72(5A) are met.Requirements for existing Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa holders The criteria for approval of a nomination contain several requirements if a Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa holder is identified as the person to work in the nominated position. In these cases:·the applicant must list on the nomination each person granted a Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa as a family member of the nominee, unless it is reasonable in the circumstances not to do so: reg 2.72(6)(a) and reg 2.72(7);·if the Minister requested evidence that the nominee satisfies the language test requirements, the applicant has provided evidence that the nominee satisfies the language test requirements specified for cl 482.223 (if the nomination is in the Short-term stream) or cl 482.232 (if the nomination is in the Medium-term stream): reg 2.72(14). The applicant gave the Tribunal a copy of the nominee’s most recent visa grant showing he has a held a Bridging Visa C since 2 July 2021 pending the outcome of his Subclass 482 visa application. As the nominee is not the holder of a Subclass 457 or Subclass 482 visa, the requirements of reg 2.72(6) and reg 2.72(14) do not apply.Specified occupation Regulation 2.72(8) requires that the nominated occupation and its 6-digit code correspond to an occupation and 6-digit code specified in the instrument in force at the time the nomination is made, that is, LIN 19/048. The occupation must also apply to the nominee in accordance with the instrument.