Moro Rekhi Pty Ltd ATF Moro and Rekhi Unit Trust (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Moro Rekhi Pty Ltd ATF Moro and Rekhi Unit Trust for approval of a nomination under the Direct Entry stream. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominator met the various requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) for the nomination to be approved. The decision was made by Jane Bell.

The legal issues before the court were whether the nominator satisfied all the criteria under regulation 5.19(4), specifically focusing on whether the application was compliant, the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, there was no adverse information known to Immigration, the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws, and whether the requirements concerning the tasks of the position, the genuine need for the position, and training requirements were met. The court also considered whether the position was located in regional Australia and if there was a genuine need for a paid employee that could not be filled by a local Australian citizen or permanent resident.

The court found that the nominator met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(a) as the application was in the approved form, the prescribed fee was paid, and there was evidence of a genuine need to employ the nominee under the nominator's direct control, supported by an employment contract and an organisational chart. Regulation 5.19(4)(b) was satisfied as the nominator was actively and lawfully operating Mac's Hotel Kilmore, a business it had purchased and renovated, with increasing turnover since 2015. Furthermore, the court determined that there was no adverse information known to the Department regarding the nominator or associated persons, satisfying regulation 5.19(4)(f), and that the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws, meeting regulation 5.19(4)(g). Crucially, the court found that the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii) were met, as the position and business were located in regional Australia, there was a genuine need for the paid position under the nominator's direct control that could not be filled locally, and the tasks corresponded to a specified occupation.

Consequently, the court set aside the original decision under review and substituted a decision approving the nomination.