Sai Sadguru Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning the approval of a nominated position for a "Cook" under migration regulations. The applicant, Sai Sadguru Pty Ltd, sought to have the Department's refusal to approve the nomination set aside. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically in relation to the nominated occupation and any applicable inapplicability conditions.

The central legal issue was whether the nominated occupation of "Cook" corresponded to a specified occupation under the relevant instrument (IMMI 17/060) and whether the applicant's business satisfied any inapplicability conditions associated with that occupation. The Tribunal considered whether the applicant's business, "Royal E Punjab," constituted a "limited service restaurant" or was involved in "mass production in a factory setting," which would render the nomination ineligible. The Tribunal also had to be satisfied that the applicant met all other procedural and substantive requirements for a nomination under the Migration Regulations 1994, including being an approved sponsor and correctly identifying the nominee and occupation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, as a standard business sponsor, had met the procedural requirements for making the nomination. Crucially, it determined that the inapplicability conditions, specifically those relating to "mass production in a factory setting" and "limited service restaurant," did not apply to the nominated occupation of "Cook" in the context of the applicant's business. This conclusion was based on evidence including the organisational chart, position description, photographs, menu, and submissions, as well as information available online about the restaurant. The Tribunal was satisfied that "Royal E Punjab" was not a fast food or takeaway service, a fast casual restaurant, a primarily drinking establishment, a limited service café, or a limited service pizza restaurant, nor was it involved in mass production in a factory setting.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.