OCITAP PTY LTD (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3161

OCITAP PTY LTD (Migration) [2019] AATA 3161 (3 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  OCITAP PTY LTD

CASE NUMBER:  1708747

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC 2016/3163848

MEMBER:R. Skaros

DATE:3 June 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

Statement made on 03 June 2019 at 11:35am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – nomination – Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream – Contract Administrator – does not have financial capacity to pay nominee for two years – insufficient evidence – adverse information – criminal conviction – prison sentence – nominee took advantage of international students for financial benefit – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 5
Corporations Act 2001(Cth), ss 9, 57A ,95A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 7
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 359, 376
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 1.13, 5.19

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 13 April 2017 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under r.5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

2. The applicant applied for approval on 23 September 2016. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in r.5.19 of the Regulations which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination (r.5.19(3)) stream and a Direct Entry nomination (r.5.19(4)) stream. If the application is made in accordance with r.5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met then the application must be refused: r.5.19(5).

3. In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream. The applicant, which trades as Quack Study, operates an international student consultancy business. The applicant nominated the position of Contract Administrator and identified Mr Jorge Armando Becerra Perea (Mr Perea), who is also the applicant’s Director, as the nominee.

4. The delegate refused the application on the basis the nomination did not satisfy r.5.19(3)(f) of the Regulations because the delegate found that the applicant did not meet the training requirements in each year of its approval as a standard business sponsor and was not satisfied that it was reasonable to disregard those requirements.

5. The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision record to the Tribunal. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent.

6. On 7 December 2018, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide updated and current information about the requirements for approval of the nomination as required by r. 5.19(3). In response, the Tribunal received supporting documents and submissions, including evidence of the applicant’s registration, evidence of contributions made to Sydney Institute (TAFE NSW), PAYG payment summaries for Mr Perea, a letter from the accountant dated 15 August 2016 and activity statements for various periods in 2013 and 2014. Submissions were also received regarding the training requirements, in which the representative contended that the applicant had made the required contributions, albeit late, to meet the training requirement. It was submitted that if Mr Perea is denied residency, the operations of the applicant would collapse, employees would be unemployed and students who rely on the education services provided by the applicant will be left stranded.

7. The Tribunal was unable to make a favourable decision on the evidence before it and the matter was accordingly set down for hearing.

8. During the review, the Tribunal received information from the Department of Immigration, including NSW Police Facts Sheet and Court Notices, indicating that Mr Perea had been charged with 10 counts of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage or causing financial disadvantage by deception. On 15 March 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359A of the Act and invited the applicant to comment on or respond to the information in writing by 29 March 2019. Due to discussions at the hearing, which was held before the response to the s.359A letter was due, the applicant was given additional time, namely until 17 April 2019, to provide further supporting evidence.

9. Mr Perea, in his capacity as the applicant’s Director, appeared before the Tribunal on 27 March 2019, to give evidence and present arguments on behalf of the applicant. The Tribunal was assisted by a telephone interpreter in the English and Spanish languages.  

10. At the hearing, the Tribunal had the opportunity to discuss with Mr Perea the information before it regarding the criminal charges. The Tribunal also informed Mr Perea of a certificate and notification issued by the Department under s.376 of the Act in relation to allegations received about him from a former international student, which the Tribunal put to Mr Perea using the procedure in s.359AA of the Act. The Tribunal also discussed with Mr Perea concerns it had regarding a number of other requirements for approval of the nomination in r.5.19(3), some of which are discussed further below.

    Validity of certificate and notification under the s.376 of the Act

11. Generally, where there is a non-disclosure certificate, the Tribunal would invite the applicant to comment on its validity, however, in this case, after considering the material covered by the certificate and the content of the certificate and notification, the Tribunal formed the view that the certificate is not valid.  This is because the notification states that the information (allegations) was given to the Department in confidence; however, the person making the allegations, when providing details to the Department using the online facility, clearly indicated that they did not wish to remain anonymous and wanted the information to be known. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the information was not given to the Minister in confidence and the notification, in respect of the s.376 certificate, is therefore incorrect. The Tribunal gave Mr Perea a copy of the certificate and notification at the hearing and explained to him that it would accordingly inform him of the content of the allegations.   

12. The Tribunal considered the relevance of the material covered by the certificate and formed the view that the allegations, details of which are set out further below, are relevant in that they are consistent with the type of conduct Mr Perea is alleged to have engaged in as detailed in the police and court documents. Accordingly, using the procedure in s.359AA of the Act, the Tribunal provided full details of the allegations to Mr Perea at the hearing. Mr Perea indicated that he wished to respond to the allegations at the hearing and his responses have been considered, together with other evidence provided after the hearing, further below.

13. On 17 April 2019 the Tribunal received material which relevantly included information regarding the applicant’s business activities, draft financial documents and a copy of an Intensive Correction Order issued by the Local Court of NSW, dated 12 April 2019. The Order indicates that on 12 April 2019 the applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for the offence(s) ‘Seq 15 - Cause delivery, document with false statement, Migration Act’ and 18 months of imprisonment for the offence(s) ‘Seq 17 - Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc. by deception’. It also indicates that the terms of imprisonment commenced on 12 April 2019 and expire on 11 October 2020, which are to be served by way of intensive correction in the community as provided for in s.7 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure)Act 1999 (NSW).

14. The Tribunal has considered the evidence before it and, for the following reasons, has decided to affirm the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

15. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream set out in r.5.19(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.

16. At the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with Mr Perea its various concerns, including whether the applicant is still actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia and whether the applicant had the financial capacity to provide the requisite employment. The Tribunal discussed with Mr Perea the requirements relating to training and whether it was reasonable to disregard those requirements. The Tribunal also discussed with Mr Perea the information set out in the particulars of the s.359A letter and the information put to him under s.359AA. Mr Perea was given an opportunity at the hearing to comment on the various issues and concerns. The Tribunal also allowed additional time after the hearing for further supporting evidence to be provided.

17. The Tribunal notes that after the hearing, the applicant’s representative contacted the Tribunal and informed the officer that they did not mention everything they wanted to at the hearing. The Tribunal officer informed the representative that as the applicant had been given additional time, until 17 April 2019, they could provide further supporting evidence, by way of written submissions, detailing the evidence they wanted to give at the hearing which the member would consider before making the decision.  

18. As noted above, the Tribunal subsequently received documents after the hearing. While the documents received indicate that the applicant remains registered as a company and appears to still be conducting an international student consultancy business, the financial documents received were, in the Tribunal’s view, of limited probative value. The Tribunal’s considerations of the financial evidence, which the Tribunal considered to be relevant to the requirement in r.5.19(3)(d), are discussed further below. Before considering this issue, however, the Tribunal has first considered whether the applicant meets the requirements in r.5.19(3)(g) as this was the most prominent issue in the course of the review.

    No adverse information known to Immigration: r.5.19(3)(g)

19. Regulation 5.19(3)(g) requires that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or person associated with the nominator; or it is reasonable to disregard any such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in rr.1.13A and 1.13B. 

20. The relevant definition of ‘adverse information’ at r.1.13(A)(1), as in force before 18 March 2018, relevantly states that ‘adverse information’ is any adverse information relevant to a person’s suitability as a nominator (within the meaning of r.5.19) and includes information that the person, or persons associated with the person:

    (d)  has been found guilty by a court of an offence under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law that relates to one or more of the matters referred to in subregulation (2); or

    (e)  has, to the satisfaction of a competent authority, acted in contravention of such a law; or

    (f)  has been the subject of administrative action (including being issued with a warning), by a competent authority, for a possible contravention of such a law; or

    (g)  is under investigation, subject to disciplinary action or subject to legal proceedings in relation to an alleged contravention of such a law; or

    (h)  has become insolvent within the meaning of subsections 5(2) and (3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 and section 95A of the Corporations Act 2001.

21. The matters referred to in sub-regulation (2) include, discrimination, immigration, industrial relations, occupational health and safety, people smuggling and related offences, slavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting, taxation, terrorism, trafficking in persons and debt bondage. 

22. Regulation 1.13A(3) provides that the conviction, contravention, administrative action, investigation, disciplinary action, legal proceedings or insolvency mentioned in paragraphs (1)(d) to (h) must have occurred within the previous three years.  Also relevant in this case is the meaning of ‘associated with’ in r.1.13B, which relevantly provides that a person (the associated person) is associated with another person that is a corporation if the associated person is an ‘officer’ of the corporation as defined in s.9 of the Corporations Act 2001 and includes a ‘director’ of the corporation. The applicant, as indicated in the current ASIC company extract provided to the Tribunal, is a registered Australian proprietary company and is therefore a corporation within the meaning of s.57A of the Corporations Act 2001. The company extract also indicates that Mr Perea is a director of the applicant. Mr Perea is therefore an ‘officer’ of the corporation.

23. The information before the Tribunal, which is known to Immigration, and which the Tribunal considered to be adverse, includes information contained in the Court Attendance Notice and Police Facts Sheet and the allegations received by the Department from a former international student about Mr Perea. The court and police documents indicate that Mr Perea, who is the Director and Contract Administrator of the applicant, had been charged with dishonestly obtaining financial advantage or causing disadvantage by deception. The documents detailed a sequence of allegations received by about 10 different persons, who were described as international students, indicating they paid Quack Study various sums of money for immigration related services that had not been provided. The allegations suggested that Mr Perea, as the applicant’s operator, had obtained temporary and permanent financial advantage from the victims named.

24. In the invitation to comment on the above information, which included a copy of the court and police documents, the Tribunal explained that the information was relevant to the requirement that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator in r.5.19(3)(g)(i). It explained that if it relied on the information it would find that there is adverse information, as defined in r.1.13A, relevant to a person’s suitability as a nominator because the information indicates that the applicant’s Director, Mr Perea, is subject to legal proceedings in relation to an alleged contravention of a law. The Tribunal explained that the nature of the charges, which indicate that Mr Perea has been using his position with the nominator to dishonestly obtain financial advantage, would lead the Tribunal to find that the applicant is not suitable to be a nominator and that there is adverse information known about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator. The Tribunal explained that if it found that there is adverse information, as defined in r.1.13A, known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator and is not satisfied that it is reasonable to disregard the adverse information, as provided for in r.5.19(3)(g)(ii), then the decision under review would be affirmed.

25. Further to the above, the Tribunal also has before it details of allegations received by the Department regarding Mr Perea and Quack Study. The allegations, the particulars of which were put to the applicant for comment at the hearing using the procedure in s.359AA, are as follows:

    ·The Department received allegations from Ms Rosmery Medina, regarding the business Quack Study located on Sussex Street Sydney, which she indicated is owned by Jorge Armando Becerra Perea, for whom contact details and website information was provided.

    ·In the allegations, Ms Medina states the following: ‘I’m writing this letter because it is very important for people to know, besides to ask for justice. Last year I decided to come to Australia to study English, unfortunately with the agency Quack Study, I deposited AU$6275, through my sister’s account to his account [details of an account were provided] to start the process on 23 November 2017. The visa was denied on 17 January 2018, nevertheless I knew two months late, 23^rd of March, because he never said anything to me. Jorge Armando Becerra Perea is a swindler man. He never paid to the school neither the insurance as this was the reason the visa was denied. I live in Peru, I lost a lot of money in my paperwork, medical check-up, fingerprints. Jorge Armando Becerra Perea destroyed my dreams to study in another country, my plan of life, although he returned the money after five months the damage is done.’

26. The Tribunal explained to Mr Perea that the allegations, as set out above, are relevant because they appear to be consistent with the information in the Court Attendance Notice and NSW Police Facts Sheet, about which the Tribunal wrote to him under s.359A of the Act, in the letter dated 15 March 2019. The Tribunal noted that the allegations, when considered in combination with the other information before it, would lead the Tribunal to find that the applicant is not suitable to be a nominator and that there is adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or its Director. The Tribunal explained that if it found that there is adverse information, as defined in r.1.13A, known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator and is not satisfied that it is reasonable to disregard the adverse information, as provided for in r.5.19(3)(g)(ii), then the decision under review would be affirmed.

27. The Tribunal asked Mr Perea if he wished to seek additional time to consider his response; however, he promptly responded to the information stating that the allegations were all false. Mr Perea stated that the reasons given in the allegations about why the visa was not granted is not true and that the person who made the allegations was found not to be a genuine student and that this could be verified by the Department. He stated that the Confirmation of Enrolment would also indicate if payment had been made. He stated that as for the medical insurance it was up to students to arrange their own medical insurance with the insurance company of their choice. Mr Perea stated that the negative remarks made about his company came from a dissatisfied customer who was not granted a visa and who chose to direct her complaint to the Department. Mr Perea stated that when they came to know that the visa application was refused, the money was refunded to the student less the amount that had to be paid to the college.

28. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant’s response and noted the difficulties in substantiating Ms Medina’s allegations given she is not a witness in the proceedings. The Tribunal noted however that the allegations appeared to be highly consistent with the type of conduct Mr Perea, as the applicant’s Director, is alleged to have engaged in by numerous other international students, as detailed in the police documents. The victims alleged that they had paid Quack Study for enrolment in courses and health insurance and had been assured that they were enrolled and that the required health insurance policies had been arranged and in some cases had been given documents suggesting this was the case. The victims alleged that they subsequently discovered, with each providing their unique set of facts, that they had not been enrolled and that the insurance policies had not been arranged.

29. In response, Mr Perea stated that he understands the allegations made against him but that on 12 April 2019 all the allegations will be found to be untrue. He stated that he was treated as a dishonest person and investigations were carried out by the police. He stated that even though he was the Director of Quack Study he did not have management of all the students and devoted himself to the commercial side of the business and others had advised the students. He also stated that he understands that, as the Director, he has responsibility. He stated that he has been investigated and the conclusion will be that he is not dishonest. In clarifying his evidence, the applicant stated that he is due to appear in court for the last time on 12 April 2019 in relation to the dishonesty charges and he is confident that all the charges will be withdrawn. He stated that all the allegations are untrue and all will be clarified on 12 April 2019.

1. As noted above, the Tribunal gave the applicant until 17 April 2019 to provide further supporting evidence, including information about the outcome of the court proceedings on 12 April 2019. The evidence received on 17 April 2019 indicates that Mr Perea was found guilty of ‘cause delivery, document with false statement, Migration Act’, and ‘dishonestly obtain financial advance etc. by deception’ for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment to be served by way of intensive correction in the community.

2. The Tribunal finds on the evidence before it that the information known to Immigration about the applicant and its Director, as set out above, in respect of the legal proceedings against Mr Perea, is relevant to the applicant’s suitability as a nominator and is therefore adverse information as provided for in r.1.13A. It follows that there is adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator. The applicant therefore does not satisfy the requirement in r.5.19(3)(g)(i).

3. The Tribunal has considered whether it is reasonable to disregard the adverse information. At the hearing, Mr Perea contended that the allegations made against him and Quack Study are false and that he was innocent. Mr Perea suggested that the allegations were made by dissatisfied clients and appeared confident that all the charges against him would be withdrawn on 12 April 2019. However, this did not occur and the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that Mr Perea was convicted and sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment to be served by way of intensive correction in the community. Given the seriousness of the offences for which Mr Perea was convicted, as reflected by the sentence imposed, the Tribunal does not consider it reasonable to disregard the adverse information.

4. The Tribunal has also had regard to the earlier submissions made by the representative about the applicant’s operations collapsing, including employees becoming unemployed and international students being stranded, if the nomination is not approved and Mr Perea is not granted residency. In light of the fact that Mr Perea has been convicted of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception and causing delivery of documents with false statements, offences he committed whilst being a director of the applicant, the Tribunal gives no favourable weight to this submission. The Tribunal considers that Mr Perea, as a director, used the business operated by the applicant to take advantage of international students to obtain temporary and permanent financial benefit. In these circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider it reasonable to disregard the adverse information.

5. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that r.5.19(3)(g)(ii) has not been satisfied. It follows that r.5.19(3)(g) is not met.

6. While it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider any of the other requirements in r.5.19(3), the Tribunal wishes to make the following remarks on the post hearing material received which would have also posed difficulty for the applicant in respect of other requirements for approval of the nomination.

7. In relation to the business’ activities and current financial circumstances, the Tribunal notes that there is limited substantive evidence before it about the business’ current operations and its financial circumstances. While the applicant has provided to the Department and the Tribunal copies of lodged business activity statements up to the financial year ended 30 June 2016, the evidence received regarding the applicant’s more recent business activities and financial circumstances is largely unsubstantiated. After the hearing, the Tribunal received draft 2018/2019 business activity statements, signed on 16 April 2019, together with letters from the accountant regarding the amounts payable to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), also dated 16 April 2019. The Tribunal also received draft company returns for the 2017 and 2018 financial years, signed on 16 April 2019, and internally generated documents regarding superannuation and payslips for Mr Perea. It appears that over the last few years the applicant has not lodged any business activity statements with the ATO, which the Tribunal notes are normally required to be lodged within 28 days after each quarter.

8. There is limited contemporaneous evidence before the Tribunal regarding the applicant’s business activities and financial circumstances. The financial documents recently received appear to have been generated after the hearing for the purposes of the review. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant also provided copies of service/agency agreements and invoices issued for services provided; however, these invoices do not overcome the concerns regarding the lack of verifiable contemporaneous evidence about the applicant’s financial circumstances. The Tribunal is unable to be satisfied as to the current financial circumstances of the applicant and for these reasons, it is unable to be satisfied that the applicant will have the financial capacity to provide the nominated employment.

9. The Tribunal received a copy of the employment contract indicating that the applicant will provide Mr Perea with employment for two years and an annual salary package of $60,225. The Tribunal has had regard to the payslips and PAYG payments summaries for the nominee.

10. While the employment documents indicate that Mr Perea has been employed by the applicant in the past, and has been receiving a salary equivalent to that nominated in this application, the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied, given its concerns about the reliability of the draft financial documents, that the applicant still has the financial capacity to maintain Mr Perea’s employment for further period of two years.

11. Regulation 5.19(3)(d) applies to certain nominees, namely those described in r.5.19(3)(c)(i), and requires that the nominee will be employed on a full time basis for at least two years on terms that do not expressly preclude the possibility of an extension.

12. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Perea is a person described in r.5.19(3)(c)(i) as he claims to have been employed full time in Australia in the position for which he held the Subclass 457 visa for at least two in the three years before the nomination application. In the circumstances, the applicant must satisfy the requirement in r.5.19(3)(d).

13. For the reasons discussed in some detail above, the Tribunal is not satisfied as to the reliability of the draft financial documents provided in respect of the applicant’s financial performance over the last two financial years. The Tribunal is accordingly unable to be satisfied that the applicant has the financial capacity to employ the nominee for a period of at least two years. Consequently, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the nominee will be employed on a full time basis for at least two years.

14. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that the requirements in r.5.19(3)(d) have also not been satisfied.

15. For the above reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of r.5.19(3). The applicant has not sought to satisfy the criteria in Direct Entry nomination stream, and as such has not met the requirements in r.5.19(4). Accordingly, the nomination of the position cannot be approved. Therefore, the Tribunal must affirm the decision under review.

    DECISION

16. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

    R. Skaros
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  -  EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994

    5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)

    …

    (2)The application must:

    (a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and

    (aa) include a written certification by the nominator stating whether or not the nominator has engaged in conduct, in relation to the nomination, that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR(1) of the Act; and

    (b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.

    Temporary Residence Transition nomination

    (3)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:

    (a)the application for approval:

    (i)     is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and

    (ii)    identifies a person who holds a Subclass 457 … visa granted on the basis that the person satisfied the criterion in subclause 457.223(4) of Schedule 2; and

    (iii)     identifies an occupation, in relation to the position, that:

    (A)is listed in ANZSCO; and

    (B)has the same 4-digit occupation unit group code as the occupation carried  out by the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa; and

    (b)the nominator:

    (i)     is, or was, the standard business sponsor who last identified the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa in a nomination made under section 140GB of the Act or under regulation 1.20G or 1.20GA as in force immediately before 14 September 2009; and

    (ii)    is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and

    (iii)     did not, as that standard business sponsor, meet regulation 1.20DA, or paragraph 2.59(h) or 2.68(i), in the most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and

    (c)either:

    (i)     both of the following apply:

    (A)in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application, the holder of the Subclass 457 …visa identified in subparagraph (a) (ii) has:      

    (I)held one or more Subclass 457 visas for a total period of at least 2 years; and

    (II)been employed in the position in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa for a total period of at least 2 years (not including any period of unpaid leave);

    (B)the employment in the position has been full-time, and undertaken in Australia; or

    (ii)    all of the following apply:

    (A)the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa on the basis that the person was identified in a nomination of an occupation mentioned in sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(d)(iii)(B) or sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(e)(iii)(B);

    (B)the nominator nominated the occupation;

    (C)the person has been employed, in the occupation in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa, for a total period of at least 2 years in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application; and

    (d)for a person to whom subparagraph (c)(i) applies:

    (i)     the person will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years; and

    (ii)    the terms and conditions of the person’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and

    (e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:

    (i)are provided; or

    (ii)would be provided;

    to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and

    (f)either:

    (i)     the nominator:

    (A)fulfilled any commitments the nominator made relating to meeting the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and

    (B)complied with the applicable obligations under Division 2.19 relating to the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; or

    (ii)    it is reasonable to disregard subparagraph (i); and

    Note Different training requirements apply depending on whether the application for approval as a standard business sponsor was made before 14 September 2009 or on or after that date.

    (g)either:

    (i)     there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or

    (ii)    it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and

    (h)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.