TAYRONA CONSULTING PTY LTD (Migration)

[2020] AATA 5592

TAYRONA CONSULTING PTY LTD (Migration) [2020] AATA 5592 (17 November 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  TAYRONA CONSULTING PTY LTD

CASE NUMBER:  1725144

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2016/1132805

MEMBER:Susan Reece Jones

DATE:17 November 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.

Statement made on 17 November 2020 at 11:17am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – nomination of a position – Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream – position of Program or Project Administrator – financial capacity to employ the nominee for 2 years – updated evidence of business operations – employment in the nominated position for the previous 2 years – terms and conditions of employment – delayed payments under training obligations – decision under review set aside           

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 245, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 1.13, 5.19

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 27 September 2017 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under r.5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

2.    The applicant applied for approval on 15 March 2016. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position, Program or Project Administrator (ANZSCO: 511112), in Australia are found in r.5.19 of the Regulations which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream (r.5.19(3)) and a Direct Entry nomination stream (r.5.19(4)). If the application is made in accordance with r.5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met then the application must be refused: r.5.19(5).

3.    In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream.

4. The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy r.5.19(3)(d)(i) of the Regulations because of a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the applicant had the financial capacity to be able to pay the full-time salary for the nominated position for at least 2 years.

5.    The Tribunal received a review application on 16 October 2017. It was signed on behalf of the applicant by Ms Sandra Castillo Gamboa, the applicant’s sole director and nominee. The review application was accompanied by a copy of the delegate’s decision.

6. On, 15 June 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s359(2) of the Migration Act, inviting the applicant to provide further evidence in support of its case.

7.    On 25 June 2020 the applicant requested an extension in order to provide documents due to COVID-19. The Tribunal granted extension until 13 July 2020.

8.    On 13 July 2020, the applicant provided the following: 

• ASIC Current and Historical Extract dated 17 June 2020
• Financial Statements: 2018, 2019
• Lodged ATO Tax Returns for the last 2 years: 2018 and 2019
• Business Activity Statements (BAS) 2019 and 2020 
• Letter from Accountant BFS Partners dated 10 September 2020
• Business Plan
• Organisation Chart
• Employment Agreement dated 25 June 2013, 1 October 2017
• Position description
• Payslips for nominee: 2016 – 2020
• PAYG summaries for Nominee for each year of employment: 2014 to 2020
• ATO Notice of assessment  
• Job Description
• Training Benchmarks receipts
• Agreements, letters, communications from Australian education providers including:   
• Agency Agreement from Torrens University and Think Australia dated           19 August 2020
• Education Agent Agreement State of Tasmania, Department of Education     26 August 2020
• TAFE Tasmania
•  Nominee Superannuation payments

1. On behalf of the applicant, its sole director who is also the nominee, Ms. Sandra Johanna Castillo Gamboa, appeared before the Tribunal on 18 September 2020 to give evidence and present arguments.

2. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent, Mr. Miguel Mudbidri of Global Consultancy.

3. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

4. Following the hearing, on 10 September 2020, the applicant provided further evidence in support of its application, namely, 

   ·     ATO Tax return 2020

   ·     Financial Statements 2020

   ·     BAS 2020 April -June; July - September

5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream set out in r.5.19(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.

   The application must be compliant: r.5.19(3)(a)

7. Regulation 5.19(3)(a) requires that the application for approval must be in the approved form, must be accompanied by the prescribed fee and, where applicable, must include the required written certification relating to conduct that contravenes s.245AR(1). The application must also identify a relevant person and occupation.

8. From the material on the Department file, the Tribunal is satisfied that the nomination application complied with the above requirements.

9. Given the above findings, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(a) is met.

   Status of the nominator: r.5.19(3)(b)

10. Regulation 5.19(3)(b) requires the nominator to be or have been the relevant standard business sponsor who is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia. In addition, the nominator, as that standard business sponsor, must not have met certain criteria relating to the operation of a business overseas, in the most recent sponsorship approval.  

11. The Department’s records indicate that the applicant was approved as a standard business sponsor from 9 September 2013 to 9 September 2016.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the company was the standard business sponsor who last identified the nominee, Ms. Sandra Johanna Castillo Gamboa, and nominated her for a subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the company did not meet certain criteria relating to the operation of a business overseas in its most recent sponsorship approval.

12. In relation to whether the applicant is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, the applicant has provided evidence of its current ASIC and ABN registration and its Financial Statements for 2018 to 2020 and BAS Statements 2018 to 2020, which show that it is actively trading.

13. Given the above, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(b) is met.

    Previous employment of the nominee: r.5.19(3)(c)

14. Broadly speaking, to meet the requirement in r.5.19(3)(c), either:

    ·     the nominee must have been employed full time in Australia in the position for which he or she holds a Subclass 457 visa for at least 2 of the 3 years preceding the nomination application; or

    ·     the nominee holds a Subclass 457 visa on the basis that s/he was identified in a nomination of a specified occupation for that visa, the nominator nominated the occupation, and the nominee has been employed in that occupation for at least 2 years in the 3 years immediately before the application.

15. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that:

    • the nomination was made on 15 March 2016 for the position of Program or Project Administrator ANZSCO: 511112;
    • the relevant 3-year period is therefore 15 March 2013 to 15 March 2016;
    • the nominee was initially employed by the applicant on 1 September 2013 while the holder of a bridging visa;
    • the nominee applied for a subclass 457 visa on 26 June 2013 on the basis of her nomination by the applicant and was granted a bridging visa on that date;
    • she was granted a subclass 457 visa on 11 September 2013, which was valid until 11 September 2017; and

    she had therefore worked for the applicant in the nominated position for approximately 2.3 years prior to the nomination, and for 2.3 years in the 3-year period immediately prior to the nomination application being lodged.

16. Given the above findings, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(c) is met.

    Future employment of the visa holder: r.5.19(3)(d)

17. Regulation 5.19(3)(d) only applies to certain nominees (those described in r.5.19(3)(c)(i)). For this class of person, the Regulations require that the nominee will be employed on a full-time basis for at least 2 years on terms that do not expressly preclude the possibility of an extension.

18. The Department refused the nomination because the applicant did not show a financial capacity to be able to pay the full-time salary for the nominated position for at least 2 years. The nominee is also the Director of applicant.

19. In the applicant’s submission, the representative advised the Tribunal that the applicant had established the business initially by matching overseas (specifically, South American) students with private English Colleges and Vocational VET colleges in Australia.  However, given the continued growth of the applicant’s business, the applicant’s sole director and nominee, Ms Castillo Gamboa, told the Tribunal that the applicant has then increased its planning and marketing arrangements with Universities and TAFEs. The applicant provided an example of an arrangement with Torrens University. The applicant also provided a list of Institutions it represents, advising that the applicant works directly with more than 120 educational institutions all of which are Australian (including Victoria University, Kaplan business college, Navitas Group, ILSC and Greenwich College).

20. Ms Castillo Gamboa told the Tribunal at hearing that she had started the business in 2013 having come to Australia as a student initially. Observing that the International Education business is Australia’s third largest Export Industry, Ms Castillo Gamboa told the Tribunal at hearing that the applicant commenced a student education agency specialising in the Latin American market, and specifically students from Colombia. The applicant is now, Ms Castillo Gamboa told the Tribunal, recognised for its Latin American specialisation to the extent that the applicant is establishing 2 offices in Colombia so as, post COVID-19, to be able take advantage of the opportunities with Latin American students and Australian education institutions, particularly TAFE’s as few have Latin American students. Ms Castillo Gamboa also told the Tribunal about creating events for the students in order to assist the students with integrating the international students into Australian culture. In addition, the applicant is a member of the International Student Education Agents Association (ISEAA) and has actively participated through COVID-19 in supporting students with food assistance.

21. The applicant provided comprehensive financial details from commencement of the applicant’s business in 2013 to date including the applicant’s original Business Plan for the last 3 years, 2018, 2019 and 2020. The applicant’s BAS from Quarter 1 2018 to Quarter 3 2020 was also provided.

22. The applicant provided the Tribunal with the nominee’s Employment Agreements dated 25 July 2013 and most recently, 1 October 2017, both with a salary of $60,000.

23. The applicant submitted a letter from its Accountant Tanvir Hasan, of BFS Partners dated 10 September 2020, who has acted for the applicant since it commenced operation. Based on the financial statements, business plan and the information provided by Ms Castillo Gamboa director, Mr Hasan confirmed that as of the 2020 Financial Statements, the business has continued to grow and the income for the applicant indicates as follows:

Financial Year	Income $
2014	$20, 591
2015	$ 152,223
2016	$ 260,743
2017	$ 481,803
2018	$ 679,983
2019	$ 784,740
2020	$ 797,233

1. The Tribunal notes that the applicant is the recipient of a COVID-19 Grant of $10,000. Its BAS indicates the following:

BAS	Sales $	Salaries $
2018
January-March	173,463	19,742
April – June	139,003	26,050
July – September	160,546	25,350
October -December	205,709	25,350
Total	678,721	96,492
2019
January-March	198,569	29,985
April – June	239,700	31,460
July – September	223,570	38,778
October -December	207,881	32,892
Total	869720	133115
2020
January-March	201,082	27,120
April – June	184,635	30,104
July- September	199,699	25,803

1. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of its continuing office Lease in Ultimo, Sydney.

2. Whilst the applicant’s nomination specifies Ms Castillo Gamboa as the applicant’s Project Administrator, she is also the applicant’s sole director. As a small business, Ms Castillo Gamboa’s key role includes generate and developing projects for Latin American students with Australian education institutions. She has also created, manage and developed a project with the managers of Australian bars and clubs, to hold events for international students at locations such as the Tattersalls Club in Sydney. The applicant has by all accounts, carried out more than 70 events over 6 years. In addition to generating income for the bars, restaurants and musicians, the applicant provided evidence to the Tribunal to show its support to its international students.

3. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has also been part of COVID19 international student help, where the applicant with other student agencies and educational associations, have assisted international students who have been affected by the global crisis, not only financially but also psychologically. Ms Castillo Gamboa told the Tribunal that the applicant has been alive to the vulnerability of the students and the applicant is committed to helping. In addition, Ms Castillo Gamboa told the Tribunal that amongst the projects she has designed and administered in COVID-19 times is a project called "Take Australia to your home", which is designed to motivate the applicant’s international students to study their courses from Australian educational entities, in study mode online from their own countries in Latin America.

4. Ms Castillo Gamboa also informed the Tribunal that through the multiple projects she has initiated and administered, the income of the applicant’s business has grown from $20,591 in 2014 to $784,740 in 2019. The applicant’s plans are focused to deliver a turnover of $1.5m p.a once the international borders are opened, through implementing strategies to leverage the Latin American student market post COVID-19 as Ms Castillo Gamboa is of the view that  Latin American Student market is a market which will become increasingly important to the Australian education sector post COVID 19. The applicant provided a copy of a recent letter (August 2020) from TAFE Tasmania, which has offered to sign an agreement with the applicant as an agent to enrol Latin American Students as evidence in support of this view.

5. Given the additional material provided to the Tribunal, and its ability to review the ongoing operations of the applicant since the delegate’s decision, the Tribunal is satisfied that it has the financial capacity to continue to employ the nominee on a full-time basis for at least 2 years.

6. Given the above findings, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(d) is met.

   No less favourable terms and conditions of employment: r.5.19(3)(e)

7. Regulation 5.19(3)(e) requires that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.

8. The Tribunal accepts that the day to day duties of the nominee are predominantly that of a Program or Project Administrator (ANZSCO: 511112). The Tribunal is further satisfied that there is no other equivalent Australian employee employed by the applicant, particularly given the highly specialised skills and work of the nominee for the applicant. Therefore, the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position must be no less favourable than those that would be provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.

9. The nominee’s most recent (and continuing) Employment Agreement (1 October 2017) states that the nominee will be employed for at least 2 years full time employment with a base annual salary of $60,000 (plus superannuation), the nominee’s ATO Notice of Assessments for the financial years noted below evidences as follows: 

$	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
PAYG	45,000	60,000	53,532	60,000	61,442	65,000
ATO	21,548	44,400	58,060	56,124	57,603	59,541	$64,629

42.      The Tribunal has consulted a range of sources of information, including:

• the Payscale website (accessed 7 November 2020) indicates that a Program or Project Administrator in Australia earns an average salary of $61,726, with the salary range being from $49,000 and $79,00 annually:
• advertisements for experienced   positions in Sydney listed on Seek.com.au as at 11 November 2020 where a salary range is given as $55,000 - $70,000 pa.:     The Tribunal notes that whilst the nominee is the director and owner of the company that is the sponsor (i.e. the applicant), the Tribunal is satisfied that the nominee is a genuine employee, and that the nominee is genuinely and predominantly carrying out the duties of a Program or Project Administrator, as well as any additional duties that flow from being a director. The Tribunal is thus satisfied that the proposed salary associated with the nominated position is within the salary range of what an equivalent Australian employee would be paid.

  44.      The Tribunal is further satisfied that the contract of employment dated 1 October 2017 for the nominee has standard provisions relating to leave and termination that are consistent with those in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Commonwealth) and National Employment Standards (NES).

  45. Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(e) is met.

  Training commitments and obligations: r.5.19(3)(f)

  46.      Regulation 5.19(3)(f) requires the applicant to have fulfilled any commitments made relating to meeting training requirements, and complied with applicable obligations relating to training requirements, during the period of the applicant’s most recent sponsorship approval.  These requirements may be disregarded if it is reasonable to do so.

  47.      The most recent Standard Business Sponsorship for the applicant commenced from 9 September 2013 to 9 September 2016.

  48.      Specifically, the training requirements applicable for an established business with approval as a standard business sponsor in that period are set out in written instrument IMMI 13/030 as follows:

• A) recent expenditure by the business to the equivalent of at least 2% of payroll of the business, in payments allocated to an industry training fund that operates in the same or related industry of the business; or
• B) recent expenditure by the business to the equivalent of at least 1% of the payroll of the business, in the provision of training to employees of the business.

• IMMI 13/030 provided that expenditure that can count towards Training Benchmark B includes:

  • paying for a formal course of study for the business’s employees who are Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents or for TAFE or University students, as part of the organisational training strategy
  • funding a scholarship in a formal course of study approved under the Australian Qualifications Framework for the business’s employees who are Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents or, for TAFE or University students, as part of the organisational training strategy
  • employment of apprentices, trainees or recent graduates on an ongoing basis in numbers proportionate to the size of the business
  • employment of a person who trains the business’s Australian employees who are Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents as a key part of their job
  • evidence of payment of external providers to deliver training for Australian

  employees

  • on-the-job training that is structured with a timeframe and clearly identified

  increase in the skills at each stage, and demonstrating:

  • the learning outcomes of the employee at each stage;
  • how the progress of the employee will be monitored and assessed;
  • how the program will provide additional and enhanced skills;
  • the use of qualified trainers to develop the program and set

  assessments; and

  • the number of people participating and their skill/occupation

• However, it does not include expenditure on training that is:

  • delivered on-the-job, other than on the job training which meets the requirements outlined above under the heading ‘expenditure that can count towards this benchmark’
  • confined to only one or a few aspects of the business’s broader operations, unless the training is in the primary business activity
  • only undertaken by persons who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents
  • only undertaken by persons who are principals in the business or their family members
  • only relating to a very low skill level having regard to the characteristic and size of the business.

  49.      The calculations of Training Benchmarks A 2% of payroll for the applicant is as follows:

  ·September 2013 to June 2014:          $49,912

  ·July 2014 to June 2015:                    $68,547

  ·July 2015 to June 2016:  $77,947

  ·July 2016 to June 2017:   $74,674

  ·July 2017 to September 2017:           $22,481

  ·TOTAL payroll:   $293,561

  Training Benchmarks A 2%:                 $5,871

  50.      The applicant provided evidence of payments to an Industry Training Fund (Sydney TAFE dated 10 March 2016), in accordance with the obligations under Training Benchmark A in the sum of $3,650 believing that was the full sum required to be paid at that time. Having been appraised of the fact that the Training Benchmark A payments were incomplete, on 13 June 2020 and 13 July 2020, the applicant made further Training Benchmarks A payments totalling $2,401 to Victoria University.

  51.      Although the applicant has made the final required contribution, this was not done until recently and well after the sponsorship approval ceased. Therefore, the applicant has requested the Tribunal disregard the requirements that the payments be made during the term of the SBS.

  52.      The requirements of sub-regulation 5.19(3)(f) may be disregarded by the Tribunal if it is reasonable to do so.  

  53. In considering whether it is reasonable to disregard the requirements in r.5.19(f)(i), the Tribunal has first had regard to the evidence received from Ms Castillo Gamboa at the hearing. Ms Castillo Gamboa was apologetic about the applicant not having made the training contributions in the relevant SBS period, explaining the circumstances and the that she took steps to correct the error as soon as it was brought to her attention.

  54.      The Tribunal accepts Ms Castillo Gamboa’s evidence and accepts that she has made efforts, albeit delayed, to rectify the failures relating to the Training Benchmarks commitments. The Tribunal gives weight to the fact that the required contributions have now been made to Victoria University and that the evidence provided shows that the total Training Benchmark contributions made by the applicant were $6,051 which is greater than the Training Benchmarks A payment obligation of $5,871, which would have applied during the SBS period.  

  55. In considering the evidence overall and on balance, the Tribunal considers it is reasonable in the circumstances of this case to disregard the requirements in r.5.19(f)(i).

  56. Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(f) is met.

  No adverse information known to Immigration: r.5.19(3)(g)

  57.      Regulation 5.19(3)(g) requires that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or person associated with the nominator; or it is reasonable to disregard any such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in rr.1.13A and 1.13B. 

  58.      The Tribunal has reviewed the Department's records, including its Integrated Client Services Environment (ICSE) and has found nothing to indicate that there is any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or person associated with the nominator.

  59. Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(g) is met.

  Satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws: r.5.19(3)(h)

  60.      Regulation 5.19(3)(h) requires the applicant to have a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.

  61.      There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any breaches of the workplace relations laws of the Commonwealth or New South Wales by the applicant.

  62. Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(h) is met.

  63. Based on the findings above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of r.5.19 for approval of the nomination of the position in Australia.

  DECISION

  64.      The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.

  Susan Reece Jones
  Member

  ATTACHMENT  -  EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994

  5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)

  …

  (2)The application must:

  (a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and

  (aa) include a written certification by the nominator stating whether or not the nominator has engaged in conduct, in relation to the nomination, that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR(1) of the Act; and

  (b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.

  Temporary Residence Transition nomination

  (3)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:

  (a)the application for approval:

  (i)     is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and

  (ii)     identifies a person who holds a Subclass 457 … visa granted on the basis that the person satisfied the criterion in subclause 457.223(4) of Schedule 2; and

  (iii)     identifies an occupation, in relation to the position, that:

  (A)is listed in ANZSCO; and

  (B)has the same 4-digit occupation unit group code as the occupation carried  out by the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa; and

  (b)the nominator:

  (i)     is, or was, the standard business sponsor who last identified the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa in a nomination made under section 140GB of the Act or under regulation 1.20G or 1.20GA as in force immediately before 14 September 2009; and

  (ii)     is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and

  (iii)     did not, as that standard business sponsor, meet regulation 1.20DA, or paragraph 2.59(h) or 2.68(i), in the most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and

  (c)either:

  (i)     both of the following apply:

  (A)in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application, the holder of the Subclass 457 …visa identified in subparagraph (a) (ii) has: 

  (I)held one or more Subclass 457 visas for a total period of at least 2 years; and

  (II)been employed in the position in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa for a total period of at least 2 years (not including any period of unpaid leave);

  (B)the employment in the position has been full-time, and undertaken in Australia; or

  (ii)     all of the following apply:

  (A)the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa on the basis that the person was identified in a nomination of an occupation mentioned in sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(d)(iii)(B) or sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(e)(iii)(B);

  (B)the nominator nominated the occupation;

  (C)the person has been employed, in the occupation in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa, for a total period of at least 2 years in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application; and

  (d)for a person to whom subparagraph (c)(i) applies:

  (i)     the person will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years; and

  (ii)     the terms and conditions of the person’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and

  (e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:

  (i)are provided; or

  (ii)would be provided;

  to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and

  (f)either:

  (i)     the nominator:

  (A)fulfilled any commitments the nominator made relating to meeting the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and

  (B)complied with the applicable obligations under Division 2.19 relating to the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; or

  (ii)     it is reasonable to disregard subparagraph (i); and

  Note Different training requirements apply depending on whether the application for approval as a standard business sponsor was made before 14 September 2009 or on or after that date.

  (g)either:

  (i)     there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or

  (ii)     it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and

  (h)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.