YOUR ESTATE AGENCY PTY LTD (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by YOUR ESTATE AGENCY PTY LTD for approval of a nominated position for a Real Estate Representative. The delegate had refused the application, finding that the applicant had not provided satisfactory evidence of its financial capacity to meet its employment obligations for at least two years on the nominated salary, thus failing to satisfy regulation 5.19(4)(d)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The applicant operated a business providing rental and real estate services and sought to nominate Ms Seok Cheng Ooi for a salary of $60,000.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Direct Entry stream, specifically focusing on whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient financial capacity, was actively and lawfully operating a business, that the position was not labour-hire, that the employment terms met the regulatory requirements, that the terms were no less favourable than those for an Australian citizen or permanent resident, that there was no adverse information known to Immigration, that there was a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws, and that the tasks of the position met the genuine need and training requirements.

The Tribunal considered additional financial statements and other documentation provided by the applicant, including financial reports for subsequent years and updated profit and loss statements. It found that the applicant met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g). Crucially, regarding the financial capacity and training benchmarks under regulation 5.19(4)(h), the Tribunal accepted the evidence of payroll expenditure, including contractor fees, and the expenditure on training provided by the Abbott School of Business. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated recent expenditure equivalent to at least 1% of its payroll in providing training to its employees, thereby meeting the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(i)(B)(I).

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.