TRANSOCEAN PACIFIC INVESTMENT PTY LTD (Migration)

TRANSOCEAN PACIFIC INVESTMENT PTY LTD (Migration) [2020] AATA 1560 (17 February 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  TRANSOCEAN PACIFIC INVESTMENT PTY LTD
CASE NUMBER:  1716626
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/729536
MEMBER:Alan McMurran
DATE:17 February 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.

Statement made on 17 February 2020 at 12:58pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – nomination of an occupation (employer nomination) – Temporary Residents Transition Nomination stream – position of Accountant (General) – disregarding training expenditure requirement for the exact period – standard business sponsorship agreement – actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia – no less favourable terms and conditions – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 140GB, 245AR
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2; rr 2.19, 2.87, 5.19
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application lodged 31 July 2017 for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 21 July 2017 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under r.5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
The applicant applied for approval on 23 February 2017. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in r.5.19 of the Regulations which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination (r.5.19(3)) stream and a Direct Entry nomination (r.5.19(4)) stream. If the application is made in accordance with r.5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met then the application must be refused: r.5.19(5).
In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream.
The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy r.5.19(3)(f) of the Regulations because the applicant had not met the required training expenditure under Benchmark B during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor. The delegate further found that it was not reasonable to disregard the requirement.
The applicant appeared with the nominee before the Tribunal in a combined hearing of the review of the nomination application and the visa refusal on Thursday, 13 February 2020, to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal received oral evidence from the nominator’s director Mr Asif Rahman, and briefly from the nominee.
Its registered migration agent, Mr Adam Khaze, represented both the applicant and the nominee in relation to the review and made submissions. Following the hearing, the applicants made further written submissions on 12 and 13 February 2020.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.
Background
The applicant is a corporation registered in New South Wales since 2003. There are four current directors, one of whom appeared at the hearing. The director appearing (Mr Rahman) is an Australian citizen who has a degree in computer science. The other directors are also Australian citizens.
The applicant conducts business through four 711 General Stores, which it acquired variously in 2003, 2004, 2008 and 2011. All 4 stores are currently operating and employ mostly casual shop assistant staff, who are students. In its application[1] to the Department, the applicant provided employment details stating that there were seven Australian employees and one foreign employee (the nominee). The director explained at the hearing he had misunderstood that question, thinking the question related only to permanent staff. The director clarified the number of staff as per an employee staff list provided with submissions to the Tribunal.[2] The submitted staff list contains the names of all the part-time shop assistants and three full-time employees (excluding the four directors), being the nominee, a customer service manager (permanent resident), and one shop assistant who is full-time and an Australian citizen.
[1] BCC 2017/729536
[2] Tribunal case file 1721296 at Folio 160
The director explained that the applicant’s business has current revenue of approximately $11,000,000, with total expenses of approximately $10.5 million.[3] All income derives from the applicant’s single enterprise managing the four retail establishments.
[3] Tribunal case file at Folio 62, extracted from the 2018 company tax return;
The nominee is a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan who came to Australia in about 2007 as a student[4]. The nominee was referred to the applicant’s director in about 2007, and commenced work as a console operator in one of the 711 stores. On completion of his studies in about 2012, the nominee applied for a 457 visa, which was granted for 3 years in 2013. The nominee continued working for the applicant throughout that period, until he lodged an application for permanent residency in the temporary residence transition stream for the 186 visa.
[4] see movement record interval calculator, Tribunal case file at Folio 14
The nominee has applied for the position of Accountant (General), ANZSCO 221111 (the ABS guide). That position is described in the guide as Skill Level I, which is an indicative skill level and requires a Bachelor Degree or higher qualification, and in some instances relevant on-the-job training. The nominee has a signed employment contract in place with the applicant for the occupation, which formally commenced on 18 March 2013. The most recent employment agreement dated 11 November 2019[5], is subject to the outcome of the visa application, and will be the continuing employment contract.
[5] T case file at ff 52
The nominee completed the requirements for the award of a Bachelor of Accounting degree from the Central Queensland University. Notification of completion of the course was dated 16 November 2012 in a letter provided to the Department and submitted with the application by the nominee. The applicant employed the nominee on 18 March 2013 as an accountant, according to its letter dated 25 January 2017 on the Department’s file.[6] The nominee has remained in the position since that time.
[6] DIBP file at Folio 64; see also T case file at ff 53
The nominee was married in Pakistan on 25 September 2014, and his spouse is a secondary applicant for a permanent residency 186 visa[7]. The Tribunal explained to the nominee at the hearing that the outcome of the visa application was dependent upon the outcome of the nomination, and which was why the matters are heard together. The applicant and the nominee took no objection to this course, and the matter proceeded without any request for adjournment. An opportunity to provide further information was provided at the end of the hearing.
[7] Nominee’s application, Department file BCC 2017/729640
That additional information received 12 and 13 February 2020 concerned a previous nomination in 2016 for another visa applicant and employee, and a GEMS confirmation of training dated 28 September 2015.
The Tribunal asked if the applicant had provided all information upon which it intended to rely for the nomination review, which the representative confirmed, subject to the post-hearing submissions.
The applicant was party to a standard business sponsorship agreement with the Department for the period 16 August 2012 until 16 August 2015. This is the only sponsorship agreement entered into by the applicant with the Department, and the director said in evidence only two applications under regulation 5.19 for permanent residency had been made under that agreement, including the current application. The director said the other application had been successful and provided evidence of a letter from the Department approving a nomination application on 10 October 2016[8] for the position of customer service manager.
[8] Department file BCC 2016/1569693
The director said that in the previous (unrelated) application, it had also relied on the same evidence of its training expenditure, being the evidence presented in this application. The director was concerned why that evidence accepted previously, was not accepted by the Department in this application. The Tribunal has dealt with that submission below in these reasons.
The delegate in this instance had considered the applicant’s evidence of training expenditure, which on the financial information presented, did not meet the Benchmark B requirement of 1% of gross payroll, for each of the years of the Standard Business Sponsorship agreement, from August 2012 to August 2015. The Tribunal refers to that evidence in these reasons below.
The applicant in its submissions did not contest that the figures relied upon by the Department, and now by the Tribunal were correct. The applicant however asserted that insufficient consideration was given to the issue whether the failure to meet the requirement in this instance ought to be disregarded.
The director explained to the Tribunal that he had made a mistake in understanding the timing requirement for the necessary training expenditure. The director had understood that in order to meet the Benchmark B requirement, so long as the expenditure took place “within the year”, it would qualify. The Tribunal explained the “year” was each of the three annual periods from August 2012 to August 2015, not the calendar year commencing in January or any other “year”, and had expired in August 2015.
The director submitted in response that additional training expenditure by the applicant for training Australians in September 2015 and again in November 2015, ought be included in the “aggregate” training expenditure, and asked the Tribunal to exercise its discretion accordingly to disregard the strict application of the temporal requirement.
On the financial information presented by the applicant, if the two additional training expenditure items are included, despite being outside the relevant period, the applicant meets the training benchmark requirement.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream set out in r.5.19(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision.
For approval of the nomination, all the requirements must be met.
In this application, the delegate had found in particular that the training requirement was not satisfied and the Tribunal paid particular regard to that issue, in addition to the other regulatory requirements.
If any one of the requirements fails, the application must be refused, and there is no discretion in the Tribunal to waive the requirements, other than as posed by the regulation itself.
The application must be compliant: r.5.19(3)(a)
Regulation 5.19(3)(a) requires that the application for approval must be in the approved form, must be accompanied by the prescribed fee and, where applicable, must include the required written certification relating to conduct that contravenes s.245AR(1). The application must also identify a relevant person and occupation.
The Tribunal has had regard to the information on the Department file and is satisfied the application was made on the appropriate form and accompanied by the prescribed fee.
The application also contains the requisite certification that the nominator is not in contravention of section 245AR (1). The applicant also has identified the nominee, being the holder of a subclass 457 visa who satisfied the regulatory requirements for the granting of that visa.
The application also identifies the occupation (Accountant General) as listed in ANZSCO 221111 and which is the occupation engaged in by the nominee as the 457 visa holder.
Given the above findings, the requirement in r.5.19 (3)(a) is met.
Status of the nominator: r.5.19(3)(b)
Regulation 5.19(3)(b) requires the nominator to be or have been the relevant standard business sponsor who is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia. In addition, the nominator, as that standard business sponsor, must not have met certain criteria relating to the operation of a business overseas, in the most recent sponsorship approval.
The Tribunal finds on the available information that the applicant was the standard business sponsor who last identified the nominee as the 457 visa holder made under section 140 GB of the Act, and is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, confirmed by the ASIC records submitted.[9] The applicant does not operate a business outside Australia.
[9] see also Tribunal case file at Folio 170
Given the above, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(b) is met.
Previous employment of the nominee: r.5.19(3)(c)
Broadly speaking, to meet the requirement in r.5.19(3)(c), either:
· the nominee must have been employed full time in Australia in the position for which he or she holds a Subclass 457 visa for at least 2 of the 3 years preceding the nomination application; or
· the nominee holds a Subclass 457 visa on the basis that s/he was identified in a nomination of a specified occupation for that visa, the nominator nominated the occupation, and the nominee has been employed in that occupation for at least 2 years in the 3 years immediately before the application.
The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s submissions. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s employment contract. The applicant has further noted the oral evidence of the director. The Tribunal finds it is satisfied on that evidence the nominee has been employed full-time in Australia in the position of Accountant General and for which position he held a Subclass 457 visa, granted 1 March 2013.
As at the time of the Tribunal’s decision, the nominee has remained in the position for which he has been nominated for a continuous period of seven years. The Tribunal has considered the evidence concerning that employment, including a description of the work performed by the nominee and the evidence submitted of accounting documents prepared by him for the applicant. The director explained in evidence that managing the four retail stores requires significant attention to daily accounting activities, posting entries and maintaining ledgers, advising on and maintaining associated record-keeping requirements for compliance based financial reporting, and examining operating costs, income and expenditure. He explained the importance of having an employee full-time to continue that work.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence provided and from the nominee that the employment relates directly to the nominated application which has been performed by the nominee continuously for a period of seven years.
Given the above findings, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(c) is met.
Future employment of the visa holder: r.5.19(3)(d)
Regulation 5.19(3)(d) only applies to certain nominees (those described in r.5.19(3)(c)(i)). For this class of person, the regulations require that the nominee will be employed on a full time basis for at least 2 years on terms that do not expressly preclude the possibility of an extension.
The Tribunal has considered the employment evidence. The Tribunal notes the requirement for an application in the temporary residence transition stream for the nominator to satisfy the Minister that the nominee held the position as a 457 visa holder for a total period of at least 2 years in the period of 3 years prior to making the application. The evidence establishes that the nominee has been employed in the position related to the 457 visa for a total period of at least 2 years. The evidence also establishes that the employment was full-time and undertaken in Australia.
The Tribunal discussed the employment terms and conditions at the hearing. The Tribunal notes there is no probation requirement and the contract does not expressly exclude the possibility of the nominated employment continuing for a period in excess of a further 2 years.
Given the above findings, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(d) is met.
No less favourable terms and conditions of employment: r.5.19(3)(e)
Regulation 5.19(3)(e) requires that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.
The applicant has submitted a copy of the nominee’s employment contract.[10] The applicant and the nominee have executed the agreement, which comes into place subject to approval of the nomination and the visa applications. The agreement provides for a salary of $65,000 per annum plus superannuation, which is within the salary range for the occupation, given the nominee’s background and experience. The contract also contains standard terms and conditions applicable in the Australian workforce subject to Australian workplace laws.
[10] Tribunal case file at ff 88
The Tribunal finds that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominee’s position are no less favourable than what are provided to Australian citizens or permanent residents performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.
Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19 (3)(e) is met.
Training commitments and obligations: r.5.19(3)(f)
Regulation 5.19(3)(f) requires the applicant to have fulfilled any commitments made relating to meeting training requirements, and complied with applicable obligations relating to training requirements, during the period of the applicant’s most recent sponsorship approval.
The Minister may disregard the requirements if it is reasonable to do so.
The applicant was a standard business sponsor approved for the period commencing 16 August 2012 for three years. The delegate’s decision reproduced figures from documents provided by the applicant setting out the applicant’s gross payroll for each of the years of the applicant’s most recent standard business sponsorship approval, and covering the periods from 1 July 2012, 30 June 2013, 30 June 2014, 30 June 2015, and ending 31 August 2015.
The applicant has accepted that the figures set out by the delegate are correct and correspond to the information provided to the Department.
The regulation prescribes that in order to fulfil the nominator’s commitments for training, the nominator must comply with the applicable obligations under division 2.19 of the regulations. Regulation 2.87B specifies that the obligation to provide training arises during all or part of the period of 12 months, commencing on the day the person is approved as a standard business sponsor.[11] In this instance, the Tribunal finds that date commenced on 16 August 2012.
[11] Obligation to provide training r.2.87B (2)
The training requirements as specified by the Minister in an instrument[12] specify that the business demonstrate expenditure of at least the equivalent of 2% of payroll in payments allocated to a training fund operating in the same or related industry (Training Benchmark A).
[12] Immi 18/017
Alternatively, the business demonstrates recent expenditure by the business to the equivalent of at least 1% of the payroll (Training Benchmark B), and that the provision of the training is related to the business purpose. In this instance, the applicant seeks to rely on Training Benchmark B.
In support of that requirement, the applicant submitted financial evidence demonstrating gross payroll for each of the three years of the sponsorship in the amounts of $594,116, $626,725, and $792,549. The correlating training expenditure required for each of those years at 1% was respectively $5941.16, $6267.26, and $7925.49. The total training expenditure required over the 3 years was $20,133.91.

On the evidence provided, which the applicant accepts is correct, actual expenditure as declared during the period for each of the 12 months of the standard sponsorship approval totalled $10,800 over three years, being approximately half of what was required.
The applicant then asserts that shortly after the expiry of the sponsorship approval period on 16 August 2015, the applicant spent an additional $4,500 on 28 September 2015 and $7,700 on 11 November 2015. The director said in evidence that he was aware of the requirement for the expenditure on training based on 1% of payroll. He said however that he misunderstood the timing for the expenditure, assuming it could occur any time during the calendar year 2015 or financial year ending June 2016, and as such would be included. The applicant has produced an invoice from GEMS School of Management dated 11 November 2015 for $7700. The second amount for $4500 is evidenced in the applicant’s post-hearing submissions in the acknowledgment form the provider[13] and also accounted for in the applicant’s financial statements produced.
[13] Tribunal case file at f 43
The applicant’s evidence[14] is that two registered training organisations were utilised by the applicant. One was GEMS, and the other was All Australian Training Pty Ltd, and both are registered training organisations included in the Minister’s register for authorised providers.
[14]Tribunal case file at ff 161
The applicant’s submission[15] attaches copies of invoices, and names two permanent residents and two Australian citizens as the employer’s attendees. The submission states that: “As the trainings happened in the year range of 2013 to 2015, the sponsor is trying to gather further details of the trainings attended and other relevant details. The companies which provided the trainings have been sold to other businesses this poses difficulties in getting the records.”
[15] Tribunal case file at f 86
The submission further states that “We understand that department did not consider the training expenditure of $7700 made on 11/11/2015 and $4500 on 28/09/2015, fall outside of the validity period of the SBS approval and cannot be included towards meeting the training benchmark”.
The submission then proposes that the Tribunal “aggregate training expenditure can be considered for the year 2015 and therefore meet the training benchmark B requirement”. At the hearing, the representative explained that the applicant was asking the Tribunal to consider disregarding the training requirement, based on the proximity of the timing of the additional training, which was excluded because it was outside the period.
The Tribunal pressed the applicant as to why the additional training expenditure should be included. The applicant put forward that the tribunal should have regard to the following:
·the short timeframe outside the period, the additional training occurring in September and November 2015 where the sponsorship finished in August;
·that the applicant had otherwise met the training requirement and the director had candidly conceded he was aware of the obligation, but had made a mistake;
·that the regulation itself allows for discretion in appropriate cases and that the Tribunal should treat this as an appropriate case. In support, the representative pointed to only two sponsorship applications over the three-year period by the applicant, the other application which was approved[16] by the Department and which had relied upon the same training information;[17]
·the nominator applicant was compliant in respect of all other aspects for the application;
·the applicant was not suffering any financial difficulties and had not missed the timing for the training intentionally other than by the director’s mistake;
·the visa applicant would suffer unfairly as a consequence because he had no control over the nominator’s compliance activity.
[16] See application for Manjit Singh dated 27 April 2016 Department file number BCC 2016/1569926
[17] post hearing submissions of 13 February 2015
The Tribunal has considered these submissions together with the relevant evidence presented concerning training. The Tribunal has considered the nature of the training delivered to the four employees. The Tribunal raised with the applicant at the hearing that GE MS[i][18], although accredited, was the subject of a regulatory decision made 27 August 2018, cancelling certain qualifications and statement of attainments, including in relation to its Diploma of Business course number BSB 50215. The representative submitted that the training organisation may have had some difficulties but was the most available facility situated close to the applicant for the purposes of training employees.
The Tribunal has considered the submissions. The Tribunal finds:
·that the business has been operating for 17 years without issue,
·the applicant has only sponsored two nominees for permanent residency in that period, utilising the same information and the earlier application having been already approved;
·the applicant has in all other respects been compliant;
·the nominee is performing the role nominated in all respects and has been since 2013;
·the director has candidly conceded he misunderstood the temporal aspect of the regulatory requirement, and that
·the applicant has paid more than the equivalent amount of the training obligation, albeit 3 months later than required.
The Tribunal is mindful that the integrity of the nomination and visa application process requires considerable rigour in terms of application and enforcement of the Regulations. It is recognised however that the Regulation itself provides for the exercise of discretion where it is “reasonable to disregard” strict compliance. Having considered all of the above, the Tribunal finds it is satisfied this is an appropriate case where it is reasonable to disregard the requirements.
Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19 (3)(f) is met.
No adverse information known to Immigration: r.5.19(3)(g)
Regulation 5.19(3)(g) requires that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or person associated with the nominator; or it is reasonable to disregard any such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in rr.1.13A and 1.13B.
The Tribunal is not aware of any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or person associated with nominator, and no such evidence is produced. The director confirmed in evidence he was not aware that the applicant or the nominee had ever been monitored, sanctioned, or disciplined and that it had always complied with the laws of the Commonwealth and State where it operates.
Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19 (3)(g) is met.
Satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws: r.5.19(3)(h)
Regulation 5.19(3)(h) requires the applicant to have a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has not complied with any State or Commonwealth laws in relation to workplace relations. The director on oath denied any knowledge of the applicant being involved in any workplace dispute or under notice from any regulatory authority in that regard.
Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19 (3)(h) is met.
Based on the findings above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of r.5.19 for approval of the nomination of the position in Australia.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.
Alan McMurran
Member

ATTACHMENT - EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994
5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)
…
(2)The application must:
(a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and
(aa) include a written certification by the nominator stating whether or not the nominator has engaged in conduct, in relation to the nomination, that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR(1) of the Act; and
(b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.
Temporary Residence Transition nomination
(3)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:
(a)the application for approval:
(i)       is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and
(ii)      identifies a person who holds a Subclass 457 … visa granted on the basis that the person satisfied the criterion in subclause 457.223(4) of Schedule 2; and
(iii)     identifies an occupation, in relation to the position, that:
(A)is listed in ANZSCO; and
(B)has the same 4-digit occupation unit group code as the occupation carried out by the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa; and
(b)the nominator:
(i)       is, or was, the standard business sponsor who last identified the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa in a nomination made under section 140GB of the Act or under regulation 1.20G or 1.20GA as in force immediately before 14 September 2009; and
(ii)      is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and
(iii)     did not, as that standard business sponsor, meet regulation 1.20DA, or paragraph 2.59(h) or 2.68(i), in the most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and
(c)either:
(i)       both of the following apply:
(A)in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application, the holder of the Subclass 457 …visa identified in subparagraph (a) (ii) has:
(I)held one or more Subclass 457 visas for a total period of at least 2 years; and
(II)been employed in the position in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa for a total period of at least 2 years (not including any period of unpaid leave);
(B)the employment in the position has been full-time, and undertaken in Australia; or
(ii)      all of the following apply:
(A)the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa on the basis that the person was identified in a nomination of an occupation mentioned in sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(d)(iii)(B) or sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(e)(iii)(B);
(B)the nominator nominated the occupation;
(C)the person has been employed, in the occupation in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa, for a total period of at least 2 years in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application; and
(d)for a person to whom subparagraph (c)(i) applies:
(i)       the person will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years; and
(ii)      the terms and conditions of the person’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and
(e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:
(i)are provided; or
(ii)would be provided;
to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and
(f)either:
(i)       the nominator:
(A)fulfilled any commitments the nominator made relating to meeting the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and
(B)complied with the applicable obligations under Division 2.19 relating to the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; or
(ii)      it is reasonable to disregard subparagraph (i); and
Note Different training requirements apply depending on whether the application for approval as a standard business sponsor was made before 14 September 2009 or on or after that date.
(g)either:
(i)       there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or
(ii)      it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and
(h)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.

[18] Global Education and Migration Solutions Pty Ltd provider number 41276

[i]

[2020] AATA 1560

17 February 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Statutory Construction

Procedural Fairness

Appeal