Win & Roam Pty Ltd (Migration)
Case
•
[2017] AATA 79
•5 January 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Win & Roam Pty Ltd (Migration) [2017] AATA 79
[2017] AATA 79
5 January 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to refuse approval for Win & Roam Pty Ltd to be a standard business sponsor. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Win & Roam met the criteria for approval as a standard business sponsor under regulation 2.59 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Tribunal was required to determine if Win & Roam satisfied all applicable requirements, including having made the application in the approved form and paid the prescribed fee, not being an existing sponsor, lawfully operating a business in Australia, meeting specific training benchmarks, providing written attestations regarding local labour employment and non-discriminatory recruitment practices, having no adverse information known to Immigration, and proposing a reasonable number of nominees. The Tribunal also considered additional criteria under regulation 2.60S concerning the transfer, recovery, and payment of costs associated with becoming an approved sponsor.
In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that Win & Roam had met the procedural requirements for application and was not an existing sponsor. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied, based on extensive evidence including ASIC reports, Business Activity Statements, tax returns, and employee payment summaries, that Win & Roam was lawfully operating a business in Australia. The Tribunal also found that Win & Roam met Training Benchmark A or B, as it had been trading for over 12 months and provided evidence of expenditure on training. Furthermore, the application contained the necessary written attestations and declarations, and no adverse information was known to Immigration. The Tribunal also considered the proposed number of nominees reasonable given the company's growth and contractual agreements.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision to refuse approval and substituted a decision approving Win & Roam Pty Ltd as a standard business sponsor for a period of five years.
The Tribunal was required to determine if Win & Roam satisfied all applicable requirements, including having made the application in the approved form and paid the prescribed fee, not being an existing sponsor, lawfully operating a business in Australia, meeting specific training benchmarks, providing written attestations regarding local labour employment and non-discriminatory recruitment practices, having no adverse information known to Immigration, and proposing a reasonable number of nominees. The Tribunal also considered additional criteria under regulation 2.60S concerning the transfer, recovery, and payment of costs associated with becoming an approved sponsor.
In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that Win & Roam had met the procedural requirements for application and was not an existing sponsor. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied, based on extensive evidence including ASIC reports, Business Activity Statements, tax returns, and employee payment summaries, that Win & Roam was lawfully operating a business in Australia. The Tribunal also found that Win & Roam met Training Benchmark A or B, as it had been trading for over 12 months and provided evidence of expenditure on training. Furthermore, the application contained the necessary written attestations and declarations, and no adverse information was known to Immigration. The Tribunal also considered the proposed number of nominees reasonable given the company's growth and contractual agreements.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision to refuse approval and substituted a decision approving Win & Roam Pty Ltd as a standard business sponsor for a period of five years.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0