Nickal Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning Nickal Pty Ltd's application for approval of a nomination for an ICT Support Technician nec occupation. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination, which was lodged on 26 February 2018, for Mr Rakesh Chandra Rai as the nominee. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the nomination complied with the relevant provisions of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the nomination process had been followed correctly, if Nickal Pty Ltd was a standard business sponsor or party to a work agreement, and if the nominee was properly identified. Crucially, the Tribunal had to assess if the nominated occupation corresponded to a specified occupation in the relevant instrument (IMMI 17/060) and if the terms and conditions of employment offered to the nominee were no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work at the same location. The Tribunal also considered whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the applicant or associated persons.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on a detailed examination of each applicable regulation. It found that Nickal Pty Ltd had met the procedural requirements for making the nomination, was a valid Standard Business Sponsor, and had correctly identified the proposed visa applicant. The nominated occupation was found to correspond to the specified occupation in IMMI 17/060 and was applicable to the nominee. Regarding the terms and conditions of employment, the Tribunal accepted that the base salary of $70,000 per annum, plus superannuation, was in line with market expectations for equivalent work, satisfying the "no less favourable" requirement. No adverse information was known to Immigration.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Nickal Pty Ltd met all applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved. The Tribunal set aside the original decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.