Pirallo P/L (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Pirallo P/L against a decision to impose sanctions on it as an approved sponsor. The dispute arose from a site inspection of a restaurant where a sponsored person was employed as a Restaurant Manager. The Departmental inspectors interviewed the applicant's two sons, who falsely represented themselves as owners and managers of the business, leading to erroneous evidence being provided to the Department.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the prescribed circumstances for imposing sanctions on an approved sponsor, as outlined in section 140L(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), had been met. This involved determining if the sponsored person was indeed working in their nominated occupation and if the sponsor had met their obligations under the regulations.

The Tribunal found that the decision to impose sanctions was based on misleading information provided by the applicant's sons, who were not authorised to speak for the business. The applicant, the sole proprietor, provided evidence that the sponsored person's duties as Restaurant Manager substantially aligned with the ANZSCO descriptor for that occupation. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that Regulation 2.86, concerning the obligation to ensure the sponsored person works in the nominated occupation, had been met.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the circumstances for taking action under section 140M of the *Migration Act 1958* did not arise. The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision not to take any of the specified actions.