Rupinder Kaur (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Rupinder Kaur and a secondary applicant against a decision to refuse their applications for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186, under the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The primary applicant sought the visa for a position as a Cook, with the nominating business being B. Deep. S. Pty Ltd. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position would provide the applicant with the employment referred to in the nomination application, as required by clause 186.212 of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the nominated business was operating as a registered catering business at the declared premises, and consequently, if clause 186.212 of the Migration Regulations had been satisfied. This involved examining evidence regarding the registration status of the business premises with local councils, the ABN registration of the nominating business, and whether the business was lawfully permitted to operate as a food preparation venue. The Tribunal also considered information obtained from both Wyndham City Council and the City of Greater Dandenong regarding food business registration requirements and the registration status of the relevant premises and the nominating company.

The Tribunal found that the premises at 45 Watton Street, Werribee, Victoria, where the applicant was to be employed, was registered only as a beauty salon and had never been registered for food preparation or sale. Furthermore, the nominating business, B. Deep. S. Pty Ltd, had never held a registration under the Food Act 1984 within the City of Greater Dandenong, although another entity, Brothers Australia Pty Ltd, held a valid registration for the premises at 13-15 Pultney Street, Dandenong. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that clause 186.212 was not met, as the nominated position would not provide the applicant with the employment referred to in the nomination application. Consequently, the secondary applicant, who applied as a member of the primary applicant's family unit, also failed to meet the visa requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.