Murdock Early Learning Schools Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an application for approval of a nomination for a position under the Direct Entry stream, brought by Murdock Early Learning Schools Pty Ltd. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant had satisfied all the requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the approval of the nominated position.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need for the nominated position, whether the terms and conditions of employment were appropriate, and whether the position could not be filled by a local Australian citizen or permanent resident. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess compliance with various sub-regulations of 5.19(4), including those pertaining to the application form, fees, identification of a need for a paid employee, the nominator's business operations, the duration and terms of employment, workplace relations compliance, and the location and nature of the position within regional Australia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the extensive evidence provided by the applicant, which included financial records, payroll information, employment contracts, and advice from a regional certifying body. The Tribunal found that the applicant had met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(a) by submitting a compliant application and identifying a need for a paid employee. It also found no adverse information known to Immigration regarding the nominator (regulation 5.19(4)(f)) and no evidence suggesting a lack of satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws (regulation 5.19(4)(g)). Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii) were met, establishing a genuine need for the position in regional Australia that could not be filled locally, with the tasks corresponding to a specified occupation and advice received from a regional certifying body.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision under review and substituted it with a decision approving the nomination.