THE THOMAS BLAMEY HOTEL PTY LTD ATF THE TRUSTEE FOR GLENTON UNIT TRUST (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by THE THOMAS BLAMEY HOTEL PTY LTD ATF THE TRUSTEE FOR GLENTON UNIT TRUST for approval of a nominated position under the Direct Entry stream of the relevant migration regulations. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met all the requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the approval of the nomination.

The Tribunal considered each of the requirements under regulation 5.19(4). It found that the application was made in the approved form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, and included the necessary certification regarding conduct contravening section 245AR(1) of the Act, thereby satisfying subregulation (4)(a). The Tribunal was satisfied, based on documentary evidence and testimony, that the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, meeting subregulation (4)(b). It also confirmed that the nominated position was not a labour-hire arrangement, fulfilling subregulation (4)(c). Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the employment contract met the requirements of subregulation (4)(d) regarding the term of employment and the absence of an express exclusion of extension.

Regarding the remaining requirements, the Tribunal was satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those offered to Australian citizens or permanent residents for equivalent work, satisfying subregulation (4)(e). It also found no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, or that any such information was reasonable to disregard, meeting subregulation (4)(f). The nominator demonstrated a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws, satisfying subregulation (4)(g). Finally, the Tribunal determined that the position, located in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, met the criteria for regional Australia under subregulation (4)(h)(ii). Evidence of a genuine need for the position, the difficulty in filling it locally, and alignment of the duties with the specified occupation, supported by a Regional Certifying Body's advice, led the Tribunal to conclude that this requirement was met.

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