Naseeb Enterprises Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Naseeb Enterprises Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination for a café or restaurant manager position under the Direct Entry stream. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether the nomination application complied with various regulatory requirements, including the form and fee, the identification of a genuine need for a paid employee under the nominator's direct control, the nominator's business operations, employment terms and conditions, the absence of adverse information, satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws, and specific criteria relating to the position's tasks and location in regional Australia. The central issue revolved around whether the tasks of the nominated position corresponded to an occupation specified in the relevant legislative instrument and whether there was a genuine need for the position, particularly in regional Australia.

The Tribunal considered evidence provided by the applicant, including company extracts, Business Activity Statements, financial statements, employment contracts, and an organisational chart, in conjunction with the Departmental file. It found that the application was compliant with regulation 5.19(4)(a), that there was no adverse information known to Immigration under regulation 5.19(4)(f), and that the applicant had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws under regulation 5.19(4)(g). Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the position was located in regional Australia, satisfying regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A), and that there was a genuine need for a full-time Restaurant Manager, as required by regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B). The Tribunal also considered the relevant legislative instrument defining regional Australia at the time of the application's lodgement.

Having found that all the requirements of regulation 5.19 were met, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.