OCITAP PTY LTD (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision to refuse the nomination of a position under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream. The applicant, OCITAP PTY LTD, sought approval of its nomination for a Contract Administrator role. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and submissions presented by the applicant, including information provided after the hearing.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the requirements of regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal examined whether the applicant was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, possessed the financial capacity to provide the requisite employment, and whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator, as stipulated in regulation 5.19(3)(g). The Tribunal also considered the applicant's financial documentation and its probative value in demonstrating the capacity to employ the nominee for two years.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant appeared to be a registered company still conducting an international student consultancy business, the financial documents provided were of limited probative value. Crucially, the Tribunal considered regulation 5.19(3)(g), which requires that there be no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with them, or that it be reasonable to disregard such information. The definition of "adverse information" includes being found guilty by a court of an offence, acting in contravention of a law, being subject to administrative action or investigation for a contravention, or becoming insolvent. The Tribunal noted that Mr. Perea, a director of the applicant company, was associated with the nominator. The Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant met all the requirements of regulation 5.19(3).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination. The applicant had not sought to satisfy the criteria for the Direct Entry nomination stream, and therefore had not met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4). Accordingly, the nomination could not be approved.