Prime Sector Pty Ltd (Migration)
Case
•
[2022] AATA 2690
•20 June 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Prime Sector Pty Ltd (Migration) [2022] AATA 2690
[2022] AATA 2690
20 June 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a migration matter involving Prime Sector Pty Ltd, the applicant, and the delegate's decision to refuse the approval of a nomination. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the requirements for a Direct Entry nomination stream under the Migration Regulations 1994.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant satisfied the general requirements for nomination approval under reg 5.19(4) and the specific requirements for the Direct Entry stream under reg 5.19(9). This involved assessing whether the applicant's business had the capacity to employ the nominated person for at least two years and pay them the annual market salary rate, as required by reg 5.19(9)(g).
The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided any updated or current information regarding their business or the nominated position since the review application was lodged, approximately 38 months prior. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated the annual market salary rate for the occupation or that their business had the capacity to employ the nominee for the required period and at that rate. As reg 5.19(9)(g) was not met, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of reg 5.19(9), and therefore reg 5.19(4)(f) was not met.
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination. The applicant had not sought to satisfy the criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream, and thus had not met the requirements of reg 5.19(3). Accordingly, the nomination could not be approved.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant satisfied the general requirements for nomination approval under reg 5.19(4) and the specific requirements for the Direct Entry stream under reg 5.19(9). This involved assessing whether the applicant's business had the capacity to employ the nominated person for at least two years and pay them the annual market salary rate, as required by reg 5.19(9)(g).
The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided any updated or current information regarding their business or the nominated position since the review application was lodged, approximately 38 months prior. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated the annual market salary rate for the occupation or that their business had the capacity to employ the nominee for the required period and at that rate. As reg 5.19(9)(g) was not met, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of reg 5.19(9), and therefore reg 5.19(4)(f) was not met.
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination. The applicant had not sought to satisfy the criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream, and thus had not met the requirements of reg 5.19(3). Accordingly, the nomination could not be approved.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2002] FCA 617
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li
[2013] HCA 18
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh
[2014] FCAFC 1