The Jamit Trust & the TL Family Trust & the Wayne White Family Trust (Migration)

The case concerned a review of a decision regarding the approval of a nomination for a Hairdresser position under the Direct Entry stream. The parties involved were The Jamit Trust, the TL Family Trust, and the Wayne White Family Trust, acting as nominators, and the Tribunal which reviewed the initial decision. The core dispute revolved around whether the nominators met all the requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the approval of the nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant, a Hairdressing business, satisfied each of the criteria outlined in regulation 5.19(4). These criteria included the application being in the approved form and identifying a need for a paid employee under the nominator's direct control, the nominator actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, the terms and conditions of employment being no less favourable than those offered to Australian citizens or permanent residents, the absence of adverse information known to Immigration, and a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Crucially, the Tribunal also had to assess whether the tasks of the nominated position corresponded to an occupation specified by the Minister, whether there was a genuine need for the employment, and if specified training requirements were met, or alternatively, if the position was located in regional Australia and could not be filled by a local resident.

The Tribunal's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the evidence presented against each subregulation of 5.19(4). It found that the application was compliant, the nominator was actively and lawfully operating its hairdressing business, and the position was not a labour-hire arrangement. The Tribunal was satisfied that the nominee would be employed full-time for at least two years with terms and conditions no less favourable than those for local workers. Furthermore, it found no adverse information and a satisfactory compliance record with workplace relations laws. Regarding the specific requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h), the Tribunal considered the detailed duties of the nominated Hairdresser position, which included client consultations, hair treatments, cutting, styling, and reception duties, and concluded that these tasks corresponded to the nominated occupation and that there was a genuine need for the employment.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.