TRAINING GLOBAL AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 5173
•29 November 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
TRAINING GLOBAL AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD (Migration) [2018] AATA 5173
[2018] AATA 5173
29 November 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by Training Global Australasia Pty Ltd against a decision to refuse the approval of a nominated position under the Direct Entry nomination stream of the employer nomination provisions of the *Migration Regulations 1994*. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the company met the criteria for approval of the nomination.
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominator, Training Global Australasia Pty Ltd, was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, and whether the company had demonstrated sufficient evidence of its ongoing operations, including its payroll and salary expenses. The Tribunal also considered, but ultimately did not rely upon, information subject to a section 376 certificate from the Department, which related to the company's compliance with training benchmark requirements.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination, finding that the evidence provided by the company regarding its operations was inconsistent and insufficient to satisfy the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(b). Specifically, the Tribunal noted discrepancies between the stated number of employees and payroll figures in the nomination application and the figures presented in the company's financial statements and tax return for the relevant period. These inconsistencies raised concerns about the company's active and lawful operation of its business in Australia.
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominator, Training Global Australasia Pty Ltd, was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, and whether the company had demonstrated sufficient evidence of its ongoing operations, including its payroll and salary expenses. The Tribunal also considered, but ultimately did not rely upon, information subject to a section 376 certificate from the Department, which related to the company's compliance with training benchmark requirements.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination, finding that the evidence provided by the company regarding its operations was inconsistent and insufficient to satisfy the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(b). Specifically, the Tribunal noted discrepancies between the stated number of employees and payroll figures in the nomination application and the figures presented in the company's financial statements and tax return for the relevant period. These inconsistencies raised concerns about the company's active and lawful operation of its business in Australia.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0