Sydney Full Gospel Church (Migration)

The case involved the Sydney Full Gospel Church (the applicant) seeking approval for a nomination under the Temporary Residence Transition stream for the position of Music Director. The applicant, a registered not-for-profit organisation providing religious services, had lodged an application to sponsor Ms Hae Mi Lee for a Subclass 457 Visa. The core dispute centred on whether the applicant met all the requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the nomination to be approved.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had demonstrated it was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, possessed the financial capacity to employ the nominee for at least two years, and that the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those offered to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was a genuine need for the applicant to employ the nominee and whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration concerning the applicant or persons associated with it that could not be reasonably disregarded.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant, as a long-established religious organisation with diverse community support activities, was actively and lawfully operating a business. It found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence of its financial capacity, including property ownership, to meet the employment duration requirement. The Tribunal also concluded that the terms and conditions of employment offered to the nominee were comparable to those for Australian workers in similar roles. Crucially, the Tribunal addressed the issue of adverse information by inviting comment from the applicant under section 359A of the Migration Act 1958, and after considering the applicant's response, determined that any such information was reasonable to disregard.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant met all the requirements of regulation 5.19(3). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous decision under review and substituted a new decision approving the nomination.