//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
austlii:cth/MRTA/2003/760
appellant. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review, finding that the review applicant does not meet the criteria for approval as a standard business sponsor (para 27).
A restaurant business that started in late 2000 was refused approval to sponsor a foreign worker for a temporary visa. The Migration Review Tribunal upheld this refusal because the business could not prove it had trained Australian workers in the past (understandable for a new business) and failed to provide a detailed, specific plan showing how it would train Australians in the future. The business also failed to provide adequate proof that it had enough money to meet its sponsorship obligations, and did not respond when the Tribunal asked for more information.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
CATCHWORDS: Review of business sponsorship rejection - temporary business entry scheme
REVIEW APPLICANT: Piri Piri Charcoal Chicken Pty Ltd
DECISION: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review, finding that the review applicant does not meet the criteria for approval as a standard business sponsor.
1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (the delegate). Piri Piri Charcoal Chicken Pty Ltd (ABN 47095079477) (the review applicant), applied for approval as a business sponsor on 30 August 2001. The delegate's decision to reject the application for approval was made on 7 September 2001.
2. The review applicant lodged a valid application for review with the Tribunal on 27 September 2001. The decision is reviewable by the Tribunal and the application for review has been validly made by a person with standing to apply for review.
3. The Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations), provide for approval of persons as business sponsors. This is part of a scheme called temporary business entry. The scheme involves three stages:
A person (the employer) seeking approval as a business sponsor.
An approved business sponsor seeking approval of a nomination of an activity in which an individual is proposed to be employed in Australia.
A person applying for a temporary visa (subclass 457) on the grounds that the visa applicant proposes to be employed by an approved business sponsor in an activity that is the subject of an approved business nomination.
4. In conducting a review, the Tribunal is bound by the Migration Act 1958 (the Act), the various Regulations made under the Act, and written directions issued by the Minister under section 499 of the Act. Some matters may be the subject of policy, as found in publications such as the Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM3) and the Migration Series Instructions (MSIs), produced by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (the Department). The Tribunal is required to have regard to policy and apply it unless there are cogent reasons for departing from policy.
5. The Tribunal has the power to affirm a decision to refuse to approve a business sponsorship, or to set the decision aside and substitute another decision.
6. Regulation 1.20D contains the criteria for approving a person as a business sponsor, and there are guidelines set out in PAM3. The Tribunal generally has regard to the Regulations as they stood at the time of lodgement of an application for approval. However, subsequent amendments may apply in some circumstances.
7. The Tribunal had before it the MRT and DIMIA (OPF2001/008515) case files. The review applicant was represented by Mr Shamser Singh Thapa.
8. The review applicant claims to be a business operating as a restaurant and has applied for approval as a standard business sponsor (seeking entitlement to make one nomination of business activities within a 12-month period). The Tribunal is dealing with a separate application for review in relation to the refusal of a visa applied for by Sailendra Gautam on the basis that the review applicant is proposing to employ Sailendra Gautam as a Cook (MRT case number N01/05656).
9. The delegate stated that the review applicant was not approved as a business sponsor on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the review applicant has a satisfactory record of, or a demonstrated commitment towards, training Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents and that the delegate was further not satisfied the review applicant has the financial ability to meet sponsorship undertakings. The delegate, therefore, found that the review applicant did not satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 1.20D(2) (c) and (f) (D1, ff.27-29).
10. The review applicant stated when lodging the application for review that a detailed submission would be provided in due course. To date the Tribunal has received no further submissions from either the review applicant or the representative.
11. A letter pursuant to sections 359A and 359(2) of the Act was sent to the review applicant on 26 November 2002 seeking comments on adverse information on file and further information (T1, ff.38-39).
12. The review applicant had not responded to the Tribunal's letter in the stipulated time (T1, f. 39).
13. To be approved as a business sponsor, the review applicant must meet the criteria set out in regulation 1.20D. The are addressed under the following headings.
Is the applicant for approval actively and lawfully operating in Australia?
14. The review applicant stated that the business has been in operation since November 2000. A certificate of Australian Business Register indicates that the business was registered on 15 November 2000. A search of records held by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission reveals that the review applicant is a registered Australian proprietary company, Limited by Shares (T1, f.19).
Would the proposed employment contribute to employment for Australian citizens and permanent residents, or contribute to expansion of Australian trade, or contribute to improvement of Australian business links, or contribute to competitiveness within sectors of the Australian economy?
15. The review applicant's adviser stated that the business was established in November 2000 and since then has been expanding. The business has two restaurants located in Sydney and Gosford. The adviser stated that the nominator has special skills in western cooking, menu planning and preparing daily "kitchen specials" that would contribute to the Australian economy. The nominated activity will benefit Australia as it will increase the business turnover, provide training to the Australian citizens and residents, create revenue and tax income, create employment for Australian citizens and permanent residents, contribute to competitiveness within sectors of the Australian economy, contribute to earn foreign currency and pay tax and other revenue. No evidence was provided to show how the business would contribute to the Australian economy.
16. The review applicant is described as the employer of the visa applicant in a related matter - (see MRT file number N01/05656).
Will the applicant for approval introduce, utilise or create new or improved technology or business skills, or, alternatively, has the applicant for approval a satisfactory record or demonstrated commitment towards training Australian citizens and permanent residents?
17. The review applicant has not made any claim or provided statement in relation to introducing, creating or utilising new or improved technology or business skills.
18. In relation to a satisfactory training record or demonstrated commitment towards training Australian citizens and permanent residents, the review applicant has not provided evidence of a satisfactory record of training to Australian citizens and permanent residents. The review applicant commenced its operations in November 2000. The financial statement for the period ending June 2001 does not show any expenditure on training. PAM3 provides that start-up businesses will be unable to evidence a training record.
19. In relation to `demonstrated commitment' towards training Australian citizens and permanent residents, the review applicant's adviser stated that the company is expanding its business and is committed to provide training to Australian citizens and permanent residents in future. The adviser claimed that the business employs 9 people including 6 Australian citizens and 3 permanent and temporary residents. The business has 2 trainee cooks. The review applicant stated that the nominee would work at Gosford restaurant. He has relevant study and 8 years of experience in cooking and restaurant industry to perform his duties. He will provide training to apprentices. No further details of training to Australian citizens or permanent residents were provided.
20. In relation to "Commitment to Training" provision, PAM3 provides that employers must provide clear evidence of either a satisfactory training record or of having demonstrated a commitment to training. DEWRSB will comment on an employer's training record or proposed training program (commitment) as agreed between DIMA and DEWRSB in respect of the referral of all sponsorship form 1067 applications. Under policy, a `demonstrated commitment' should be evidenced by a detailed training plan specifying the proposed number of persons (i.e. permanent employees) to be trained and the nature and duration of training to be offered. In other words, the training plan should be sufficiently detailed or "quantifiable" to enable an evaluation of progress to be made in the course of business sponsorship monitoring, as appropriate
21. No evidence of a detailed training plan was provided to specify the proposed number of persons to be trained and the nature and duration of training to be offered
Is there any adverse information known about the business background of the applicant for approval or related persons?
22. There is no adverse information about the business background known to the Tribunal.
Does the applicant for approval have a satisfactory record of compliance with immigration laws?
23. There is no adverse information about the review applicant on the files
Is the applicant for approval able to comply with undertakings in respect to visa holders?
24. The delegate had concern that the review applicant did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that it has the financial ability to undertake sponsorship requirements. The review applicant provided a profit and loss statement (unsigned) for the period ending June 2001 which shows a loss of $57,485. A copy of cash flow for the period from August 2001 to July 2002 indicates that the company had total receipts $3,70,000, disbursements $2,95,378 and a balance of $79,751 which included an opening balance of $5,129 (D1, f.11).
25. A further request for information and comment allowing the review applicant an opportunity to comment on and address some of the deficiencies in information available to the Tribunal was not replied to by the stipulated time.
26. The Tribunal finds that the review applicant does not meet the criteria for approval as a business sponsor. The Tribunal must therefore affirm the decision under review.
27. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review, finding that the review applicant does not meet the criteria for approval as a business sponsor.
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review, finding that the review applicant does not meet the criteria for approval as a standard business sponsor (para 27).