ONE COAT SET PLASTER PTY LTD (Migration)
Case
•
[2020] AATA 2695
•26 June 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
ONE COAT SET PLASTER PTY LTD (Migration) [2020] AATA 2695
[2020] AATA 2695
26 June 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for approval of a nomination of a position under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, brought by ONE COAT SET PLASTER PTY LTD (the applicant) in relation to Jose Maria de Oliveira da Silva. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had satisfied all the mandatory requirements for the approval of the nomination. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the application was compliant, including being in the approved form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, and identifying a relevant person and occupation. It also examined whether the nominator was, or had been, a standard business sponsor actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, and whether certain criteria relating to overseas business operations were met. Further, the Tribunal assessed whether the nominated position and the nominee's qualifications and employment history met the specific criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition stream.
In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the application was made in the approved form, with the prescribed fee, and included the necessary certification regarding conduct contravening s. 245AR(1) of the Act. It was satisfied that the applicant had identified a need to employ the nominee as a carpenter, and that the nominee, Jose Maria de Oliveira da Silva, had previously held a Subclass 457 visa in that occupation. The Tribunal also found that the applicant was a standard business sponsor actively and lawfully operating its business in Australia and had not met the excluded criteria in its most recent sponsorship approval. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the requirements of regulation 5.19 for the approval of the nomination.
The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had satisfied all the mandatory requirements for the approval of the nomination. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the application was compliant, including being in the approved form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, and identifying a relevant person and occupation. It also examined whether the nominator was, or had been, a standard business sponsor actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, and whether certain criteria relating to overseas business operations were met. Further, the Tribunal assessed whether the nominated position and the nominee's qualifications and employment history met the specific criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition stream.
In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the application was made in the approved form, with the prescribed fee, and included the necessary certification regarding conduct contravening s. 245AR(1) of the Act. It was satisfied that the applicant had identified a need to employ the nominee as a carpenter, and that the nominee, Jose Maria de Oliveira da Silva, had previously held a Subclass 457 visa in that occupation. The Tribunal also found that the applicant was a standard business sponsor actively and lawfully operating its business in Australia and had not met the excluded criteria in its most recent sponsorship approval. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the requirements of regulation 5.19 for the approval of the nomination.
The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0