Mr Tax Refund Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Tax Refund Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination for a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme employer nomination subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry Stream. The nomination was for the position of Accountant, to be employed in Nerang, Queensland, in favour of Ms Sisi Wu. The applicant company, represented by its director Mr Stephen Burns, provided evidence of its business operations, including changes in business name and ventures, and the impact of COVID-19, leading to diversification and the development of proprietary software.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met all the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the position was located in regional Australia, whether there was a genuine need for the position, and whether the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws and had no adverse information known to the Department of Immigration. The Tribunal also considered its procedural obligations under section 359AA of the Migration Act 1958 regarding the disclosure of information that might form the basis for affirming the decision under review.

The Tribunal found that the business and position were located in regional Australia, as defined by IMMI 16/045. It was satisfied that the nominator was essentially unchanged despite company name variations and that the director remained the representative. The Tribunal also determined that the applicant had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws and that no adverse information was known to the Department. Furthermore, the Tribunal confirmed it had complied with its obligations under section 359AA by informing the applicant of potential reasons for affirming the decision and providing an opportunity to respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision approving the nomination, finding that all the requirements of regulation 5.19(4) had been met.