The Housing for the Aged Action Group Inc (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by The Housing for the Aged Action Group Inc (HAAG) concerning the approval of a nomination for a community worker position under the Direct Entry stream. The dispute arose when the initial decision to approve HAAG's nomination was reviewed. The Tribunal, presided over by Sheridan Aster, was tasked with determining whether HAAG met the requirements for the nomination approval as stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated position and the nominator, HAAG, satisfied all the criteria outlined in regulation 5.19(4) for the approval of a nomination under the Direct Entry stream. This involved assessing various sub-regulations, including the application's compliance, the nominator's active and lawful operation of a business, the nature of the position (not being labour-hire), the terms and conditions of employment, the absence of adverse information known to Immigration, satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws, and specific requirements relating to the tasks of the position, a genuine need for the nominee, and training obligations, particularly in the context of regional nominations.

The Tribunal found that HAAG, a Victorian-based not-for-profit entity, met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(a) and (b), being actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia. It also satisfied regulation 5.19(4)(f) and (g) regarding no adverse information and satisfactory workplace relations compliance. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that HAAG met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii), which pertains to positions located in regional Australia. This was based on evidence that while most of HAAG's work was metropolitan, it had been funded for regional areas, and the nominee's role as an outreach worker covered a significant regional area. The Tribunal concluded that the nominator met the requirements of regulation 5.19 for the approval of the nomination.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision under review and substituted it with a decision approving the nomination.