Shevaroys Pty Ltd (Migration)

Shevaroys Pty Ltd (Migration) concerned an application for approval of a nomination of a position under the Direct Entry stream of the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme. The applicant, Shevaroys Pty Ltd, sought to nominate an accommodation manager. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need to employ the nominee in the nominated position, a requirement under the relevant migration regulations. The matter was heard by Terrence Baxter.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of Regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) for the approval of the nomination. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was a genuine need for the nominator to employ the nominee in the position, and if the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with all other applicable regulatory criteria, including those relating to the applicant's business operations, compliance with workplace laws, and the nature of the nominated occupation.

The court's reasoning focused on the extensive documentation and consistent oral evidence provided by both the director of Shevaroys Pty Ltd and the nominee. The court noted that the nominee had been employed full-time since November 2017 and that the director's role had expanded, with the director living at a distance from the business operations. The court considered a wide array of evidence presented both before and after the hearing, including financial statements, tax records, company extracts, the nominee's qualifications, employment contracts, payslips, and market salary evidence. The court found that the applicant had met the requirements of Regulation 5.19(4)(e), (f), and (g), and crucially, Regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii), which pertains to positions located in regional Australia.

Ultimately, the court decided to set aside the original decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination. This outcome was based on the court's satisfaction that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine need for the nominee in the accommodation manager position and had met all other regulatory requirements for the nomination approval.