Mz Markt Pty Ltd (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 1657
•30 March 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Mz Markt Pty Ltd (Migration) [2021] AATA 1657
[2021] AATA 1657
30 March 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Mz Markt Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought judicial review of a decision concerning the nomination of a position for a Chef. The dispute centred on whether the nominated position and the nominee met the relevant legislative criteria for approval. The matter was heard by a Tribunal.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under Regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the nomination complied with the prescribed process, whether the nominator was an approved sponsor, whether the nominee was correctly identified, whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration, whether the nominated occupation corresponded to a specified occupation and its code, and whether the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had complied with the prescribed nomination process, including using the approved form and fee, identifying the nominee, and specifying the occupation and its location and ANZSCO code. It was satisfied that the applicant was an approved standard business sponsor and had correctly identified the nominee. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no adverse information known to Immigration or the Tribunal about the applicant or any associated person. The nominated occupation of Chef, with ANZSCO code 351311, was found to be listed on the relevant strategic occupations list, and the tasks described in the position description largely corresponded to the ANZSCO dictionary description. The Tribunal also considered that the terms and conditions of employment would be no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident.
For these reasons, the Tribunal decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under Regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the nomination complied with the prescribed process, whether the nominator was an approved sponsor, whether the nominee was correctly identified, whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration, whether the nominated occupation corresponded to a specified occupation and its code, and whether the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had complied with the prescribed nomination process, including using the approved form and fee, identifying the nominee, and specifying the occupation and its location and ANZSCO code. It was satisfied that the applicant was an approved standard business sponsor and had correctly identified the nominee. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no adverse information known to Immigration or the Tribunal about the applicant or any associated person. The nominated occupation of Chef, with ANZSCO code 351311, was found to be listed on the relevant strategic occupations list, and the tasks described in the position description largely corresponded to the ANZSCO dictionary description. The Tribunal also considered that the terms and conditions of employment would be no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident.
For these reasons, the Tribunal decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0