Singh Hardip & Gurpreet Kaur (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a nomination under the Direct Entry nomination stream. The applicant, a family partnership operating a blueberry farm, sought to nominate an employee for a position. The decision under review had been affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had identified a genuine need for a paid employee to work in the nominated position under the nominator’s direct control, and if the other criteria stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) were satisfied.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of regulation 5.19(4). The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not identified a need for a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control, which is a prerequisite for approval under the Direct Entry stream. As the applicant had not met this essential criterion, the nomination could not be approved.