SASMAN GROUP PTY LTD (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision by a delegate of the Minister to refuse the approval of an employer nomination for the position of a full-time Cook. The applicant, SASMAN GROUP PTY LTD, sought approval for the nomination under the Direct Entry stream, with a proposed salary of $54,000 per annum. The delegate’s refusal was based on the grounds that the applicant had not demonstrated a need for a paid employee to work in the nominated position under the nominator’s direct control, as required by regulation 5.19(4)(a)(ii) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the demonstration of a genuine need for the nominated position and whether the tasks of the position corresponded to an occupation specified by the Minister. The delegate had raised concerns regarding the sufficiency of the financial documentation provided, including PAYG payment summaries from different employers and a handwritten PAYG summary for the most recent financial year, which were given little weight. The delegate also noted a lack of evidence demonstrating business growth or diversification that would indicate a need for the position.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including the applicant's operation of a café in metropolitan Sydney and the correspondence of the nominated position's tasks with that of a "Cook" as specified in legislative instrument IMMI 16/060. The Tribunal found that the nominator’s business was located in metropolitan Sydney, thus falling under regulation 5.19(4)(h)(i), which requires the tasks to be performed in Australia and correspond to a specified occupation. The Tribunal was satisfied that the requirements of this sub-subparagraph were met. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the requirements of regulations 5.19(4)(e), (f), and (g) were also satisfied, as there was no adverse information known to Immigration, and the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.