The Trustee for the Michele Casalbore Family Trust (Migration)

Case

[2020] AATA 1614

12 May 2020


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
The Trustee for the Michele Casalbore Family Trust (Migration) [2020] AATA 1614 [2020] AATA 1614 12 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for approval of a nominated position under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream, brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought approval for a nominated position as a hairdresser, with the nominator being The Trustee for the Michele Casalbore Family Trust. The core dispute revolved around whether the nominator met the regulatory requirements for approving the nomination, particularly concerning its operational status and capacity to employ the nominee.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the nominator satisfied the criteria set out in regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess if the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, as required by regulation 5.19(3)(b)(ii), and whether the nominee would be employed on a full-time basis for at least two years under terms that did not preclude an extension, as stipulated by regulation 5.19(3)(d).

The Tribunal found that the nominator, The Trustee for the Michele Casalbore Family Trust, had ceased trading as a hairdressing business under the name C Salon on 30 June 2019. This cessation of trading was confirmed in writing by the nominator's representative and verbally at the hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the requirement for the nominator to be actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia was not met. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the delegate had also refused the application on the basis that the nominator would not be able to provide the nominated full-time salary for at least two years, thus failing to satisfy regulation 5.19(3)(d)(i).

Based on these findings, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to approve the nominated position. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not met the requirements of regulation 5.19(3) and, as the applicant had not sought to satisfy the criteria for the Direct Entry nomination stream, the nomination could not be approved.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0