VIGR Investments Pty Limited (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 5628
•8 October 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
VIGR Investments Pty Limited (Migration) [2018] AATA 5628
[2018] AATA 5628
8 October 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for approval of a nomination for a Retail Manager position under the Direct Entry stream of the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme. The applicant was VIGR Investments Pty Limited, which operated McDonald's franchised restaurants in Darwin, Northern Territory. The dispute centred on whether VIGR Investments met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the nomination to be approved.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the nominated position and the nominator's business were located in regional Australia, if there was a genuine need for the paid position under the nominator's direct control that could not be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident, and if the tasks of the position corresponded with the relevant occupation instrument. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether a regional certifying body had advised the Minister on specific matters relating to the position, and whether the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident for equivalent work.
The Tribunal found that the terms and conditions of employment, including a salary package approximating $100,000 per annum, were appropriate and reflective of the nominee's extensive experience. It was satisfied that these terms were equivalent to those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work. The Tribunal also found that there was no adverse information known to Immigration regarding the nominator and that the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that there was a genuine need for the position, that it could not be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident, and that the tasks corresponded to the relevant occupation.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision under review and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the nominated position and the nominator's business were located in regional Australia, if there was a genuine need for the paid position under the nominator's direct control that could not be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident, and if the tasks of the position corresponded with the relevant occupation instrument. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether a regional certifying body had advised the Minister on specific matters relating to the position, and whether the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident for equivalent work.
The Tribunal found that the terms and conditions of employment, including a salary package approximating $100,000 per annum, were appropriate and reflective of the nominee's extensive experience. It was satisfied that these terms were equivalent to those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work. The Tribunal also found that there was no adverse information known to Immigration regarding the nominator and that the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that there was a genuine need for the position, that it could not be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident, and that the tasks corresponded to the relevant occupation.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision under review and substituted a decision approving the nomination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0