Seven Migration Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Seven Migration Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination for a Personal Assistant position under the Direct Entry nomination stream. The applicant sought to nominate Ms Debora Compri for the role. The Tribunal reviewed the Department's file and additional information provided by the applicant in response to a request for further particulars concerning the requirements of regulation 5.19(2) and (4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Seven Migration Pty Ltd met all the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the application was compliant, if the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, if the position was not labour-hire, if there was no adverse information known to Immigration, if there was satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws, and crucially, whether there was a genuine need for the position, that it could not be filled by a local resident, and that the position was located in regional Australia.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(a) by submitting the application in the approved form, paying the prescribed fee, and identifying a need to employ Ms Compri as a Personal Assistant under its direct control. The Tribunal was satisfied, based on ASIC records and financial documentation, that Seven Migration Pty Ltd was actively and lawfully operating its business in Australia, fulfilling regulation 5.19(4)(b). Furthermore, the Tribunal confirmed that the requirements of regulations 5.19(4)(f) and (g) were met, as there was no adverse information known to Immigration and no evidence of non-compliance with workplace relations laws. Critically, the Tribunal considered regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii), which requires the position to be located in regional Australia, a genuine need for the nominee, that the position cannot be filled by a local resident, and that the business is located in the same place. The Tribunal determined that Adelaide, South Australia, was considered regional Australia at the time of the application, and that all other criteria under this subregulation were satisfied.

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