VJN GROUP PTY LTD (Migration)
Case
•
[2020] AATA 4176
•13 July 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
VJN GROUP PTY LTD (Migration) [2020] AATA 4176
[2020] AATA 4176
13 July 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by VJN GROUP PTY LTD for approval of a nomination of a position under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant operates a fuel service station in regional New South Wales and sought to nominate Ms Jaspreet Kaur for the role of Retail Manager. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's attempts to recruit an Australian citizen or permanent resident for the position, which had become vacant after Ms Kaur had left.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need for the position and whether reasonable efforts had been made to fill the role with a local Australian citizen or permanent resident, as stipulated by regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii).
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination. The applicant's evidence indicated that an online advertisement in September 2016 yielded only one response from an Australian citizen or permanent resident, who was deemed unsuitable due to a lack of experience and trustworthiness. Crucially, no further advertising was undertaken after this initial attempt, despite the applicant engaging a recruiter who reportedly did not advertise the position. The Tribunal accepted this evidence, finding that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the position could not be filled by a local Australian citizen or permanent resident, a key requirement under regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(C). Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the necessary criteria for the nomination to be approved.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need for the position and whether reasonable efforts had been made to fill the role with a local Australian citizen or permanent resident, as stipulated by regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii).
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination. The applicant's evidence indicated that an online advertisement in September 2016 yielded only one response from an Australian citizen or permanent resident, who was deemed unsuitable due to a lack of experience and trustworthiness. Crucially, no further advertising was undertaken after this initial attempt, despite the applicant engaging a recruiter who reportedly did not advertise the position. The Tribunal accepted this evidence, finding that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the position could not be filled by a local Australian citizen or permanent resident, a key requirement under regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(C). Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the necessary criteria for the nomination to be approved.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0