Studynet Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning Studynet Pty Ltd (the Company) and its sponsorship obligations under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The dispute arose from allegations that the Company failed to ensure its sponsored employees, Mohammad Hossain and Md Kabir Hossain, worked in their nominated occupations. The delegate had found a failure to satisfy a sponsorship obligation under regulation 2.86, which mandates that a sponsored person must work in their nominated occupation.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Company had indeed failed to meet its sponsorship obligations, specifically concerning the nominated occupations of Customer Service Manager for Mohammad Hossain and internal Accountant for Md Kabir Hossain. It also needed to consider the appropriate action, if any, to be taken under section 140M of the Act, having regard to the criteria outlined in regulation 2.89(3).

The Tribunal found that while Mohammad Hossain had undertaken duties consistent with a CEO role, which extended beyond his nominated occupation of Customer Service Manager, this was largely due to circumstances arising from his partner's pregnancy and childcare responsibilities, and the size and nature of the Company's business. The Tribunal accepted that the Company had been incorrectly advised by its former legal representatives regarding the ability of Mohammad Hossain to perform CEO duties. Similarly, Md Kabir Hossain's voluntary, unpaid work in real estate internships was deemed not to constitute 'work' for the purposes of the Regulations. Crucially, the Tribunal accepted that the Company's failures were unintentional, stemming from misinformation, and that the Director had since implemented procedures to ensure future compliance.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a decision not to take any action specified in section 140M of the Migration Act 1958. This outcome was influenced by the finding that the sponsorship failures were inadvertent, the Company's otherwise positive standing, and the remedial steps taken by the Director.