The Trustee for GILL FAMILY TRUST (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning the approval of an employer nomination under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant, The Trustee for GILL FAMILY TRUST, sought to have a decision refusing to approve a nomination for the position of Cook set aside. The Tribunal considered whether the nominator met all the requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the nominator satisfied each of the criteria outlined in regulation 5.19(4) for the approval of the employer nomination. This involved assessing whether the application was compliant, if the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business, if the position was not labour-hire, if the terms and conditions of employment were appropriate, if there was no adverse information known to Immigration, if there was satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws, and crucially, if the tasks of the position represented a genuine need and met specific training requirements, particularly in a regional context.

The Tribunal's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the evidence provided by the nominator against each subregulation of 5.19(4). It found that the application was lodged correctly, the nominator operated a lawful business in Inverloch, Victoria, and the nominated position of Cook was within the business's activities. The Tribunal was satisfied that the nominator had demonstrated a genuine need for the position, had made genuine attempts to fill it locally, and that the tasks corresponded to the occupation of a Cook as specified in relevant legislative instruments. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the nominator had provided a Regional Certifying Body Advice Certificate, which addressed key requirements regarding terms and conditions of employment and the inability to fill the position with a local Australian citizen or permanent resident. The Tribunal concluded that all requirements of regulation 5.19(4) were met.

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