Palmerin and Victoria Pty Ltd ATF Horse and Jockey Hotel Motel Unit Trust (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 471
•11 February 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Palmerin and Victoria Pty Ltd ATF Horse and Jockey Hotel Motel Unit Trust (Migration) [2019] AATA 471
[2019] AATA 471
11 February 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by Palmerin and Victoria Pty Ltd ATF Horse and Jockey Hotel Motel Unit Trust against a decision to refuse the approval of a nominated position under the Direct Entry stream of the Employer Nomination scheme. The applicant operates the Horse and Jockey Hotel-Motel, which offers accommodation, a bar, bistro, and bottlemart. The nominated occupation was Cook.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had identified a genuine need for a paid employee to work in the nominated position under their direct control, and whether the nominee was to be paid by the applicant.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination. It found that the applicant had not satisfied the requirement under regulation 5.19(4)(a)(ii) to identify a need for a paid employee under their direct control. This was because the applicant stated they employed zero employees, yet sought to nominate a Cook. Furthermore, evidence indicated the nominee was paid by a related entity, Megaptera Pty Ltd, rather than the applicant. Despite being given an opportunity to provide further information regarding the relationship between the entities and the need for the position, the applicant failed to satisfy the delegate or the Tribunal of these requirements.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had identified a genuine need for a paid employee to work in the nominated position under their direct control, and whether the nominee was to be paid by the applicant.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination. It found that the applicant had not satisfied the requirement under regulation 5.19(4)(a)(ii) to identify a need for a paid employee under their direct control. This was because the applicant stated they employed zero employees, yet sought to nominate a Cook. Furthermore, evidence indicated the nominee was paid by a related entity, Megaptera Pty Ltd, rather than the applicant. Despite being given an opportunity to provide further information regarding the relationship between the entities and the need for the position, the applicant failed to satisfy the delegate or the Tribunal of these requirements.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0