Ramandeep Kaur (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for approval of a nomination for a position under the Direct Entry stream, brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought to have a decision reviewed that had refused to approve the nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met all the requirements for approval of the nomination as set out in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the application was compliant, if the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business, if the position was not labour-hire, and if the term of employment, terms and conditions, and absence of adverse information were satisfactory. Crucially, the Tribunal also had to assess whether there was a genuine need for the nominated position and if its tasks corresponded to an occupation specified by the Minister, particularly in the context of the position being located in regional Australia.

The Tribunal found that the application met the formal requirements, including being in the approved form and identifying a need for a paid employee. It was satisfied that the nominator was actively and lawfully operating their business, the Tinana Grocer, in Gympie, Queensland, and that the position was not one of labour-hire. The Tribunal also determined that the requirements concerning the term of employment, terms and conditions, and the absence of adverse information were met. Regarding the genuine need for the position and its correspondence to an occupation, the Tribunal concluded that the position was located in regional Australia and that the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii) were satisfied, including a genuine need for the position that could not be filled locally.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.