Pantir (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal before the Tribunal regarding a refusal to approve a nomination for a Subclass 186 Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Labour Agreement stream. The primary applicant, Mr. Gheorghita Pantir, sought review of the nomination refusal, and a secondary applicant was included as a member of his family unit. The core dispute revolved around whether the requirements of clause 186.242 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations were met in relation to the nominated position.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the nominated position met the criteria outlined in clause 186.242, specifically concerning the existence and approval of a labour agreement, the identification of the applicant in relation to the position, the approval and non-withdrawal of the nomination, the absence of adverse information about the employer or its associates, the continued availability of the position, and whether the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those offered to an Australian worker. The Tribunal also needed to consider if the secondary applicant met the criteria under regulation 186.312.

The Tribunal found that the nominated position met the requirements of clause 186.242. This was based on the fact that a labour agreement was subsequently put in place and signed by all parties after the initial nomination refusal. The Tribunal noted that the nomination had been approved on review and had not been withdrawn. It was satisfied that the position of Skilled Meat Worker was identified, the applicant was identified in relation to that position, and the requirements of the labour agreement had been met. Furthermore, although adverse information regarding the employer existed, the Tribunal deemed it reasonable to disregard it. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the position remained available to the applicant and that the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those for an equivalent Australian worker. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the primary applicant met clause 186.242 and the secondary applicant met regulation 186.312.

Given these findings, the Tribunal remitted the visa application for reconsideration by the Minister, directing that the primary applicant met the criteria under clause 186.242 and the secondary applicant met the criteria under regulation 186.312.