Yarrowee Creek Pastoral Co Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning a nomination under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant, Yarrowee Creek Pastoral Co Pty Ltd, sought approval for a nominated position. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met all the requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the approval of the nomination.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant satisfied each of the criteria outlined in regulation 5.19(4). These criteria included, but were not limited to, the application being in the approved form and identifying a genuine need for a paid employee under the nominator's direct control, the nominator actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, the position not being labour-hire, the terms of employment being for at least two years without an express exclusion of extension, and the terms and conditions of employment being no less favourable than those offered to an Australian citizen or permanent resident for equivalent work. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or associated persons, whether the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws, and whether the nominated position met specific requirements related to its tasks, location in regional Australia, and the genuine need for the role which could not be filled by a local resident.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal systematically assessed each subregulation of 5.19(4) against the evidence provided. It found that the application was compliant, the nominator was actively operating a business, the position was not labour-hire, and the employment terms met the specified duration and conditions. The Tribunal was satisfied that the salary offered was no less favourable than that for an Australian worker, there was no adverse information, and the nominator had a satisfactory record of workplace relations compliance. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the nominated position was located in regional Australia and that there was a genuine need for the role, which could not be filled by a local Australian citizen or permanent resident, thereby satisfying the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii).

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant met all the necessary requirements for the approval of the nomination. The decision under review was set aside, and a substituted decision approving the nomination was made.