The Trustee For J L B Camilleri Family Trust (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for approval of an employer nomination under the Direct Entry nomination stream, brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought to have a decision reviewed that had refused to approve the nomination of a position. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominator, Sunshine Trailers Vic Pty Ltd, and the proposed employee met the various requirements stipulated in Regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the application for approval met the prescribed form and fee requirements, and if there was a genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid individual under their direct control. Further, the Tribunal had to assess the financial capacity of the business to support the engagement, the existence of adverse information concerning the nominator, and the nominator's compliance with workplace relations laws. Crucially, the Tribunal also needed to consider whether the tasks of the proposed position corresponded to an occupation specified by the Minister and if specified training requirements were met, or alternatively, if the position was in regional Australia and could not be filled locally.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the application was compliant with the formal requirements. It was satisfied that Sunshine Trailers Vic Pty Ltd demonstrated sufficient financial capacity, evidenced by its income and expenses for the relevant financial year, to support the nominee. The Tribunal accepted that there was a genuine need for the position, noting the nominee's exceptional skills as a welder/fabricator in an industry experiencing a skills shortage. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no adverse information known to Immigration and confirmed the nominator's satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws, including the provision of an employment statement and remuneration exceeding award rates. The Tribunal also satisfied itself that the requirements under Regulation 5.19(4)(h) were met.

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