1411762 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application to affirm a decision to refuse a nomination for a visa. The applicant sought to have the nomination approved, but the delegate had refused it on the grounds that the nominated position was not genuine, a requirement under regulation 2.72(10)(f) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically focusing on whether the nominated occupation of "Accountant" accurately reflected the duties of the position.

The central legal issue was whether the position associated with the nominated occupation was genuine, as required by regulation 2.72(10)(f). This involved assessing whether the tasks of the position were substantially equivalent to those listed for an Accountant in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO). The Tribunal also considered the applicant's certification that the position's tasks included a significant majority of the tasks of the nominated occupation.

The Tribunal reasoned that to determine if the position was genuine and substantially equivalent to the nominated occupation, it needed to compare the tasks of the position with the ANZSCO description of an Accountant. Evidence presented indicated that the nominated position involved a broad range of tasks typically associated with bookkeepers, payroll clerks, and accounting clerks, rather than the more strategic and policy-focused functions of an Accountant as defined by ANZSCO. The company representative conceded that only one task, "examining operating costs and organisations' income and expenditure," aligned with the ANZSCO description of an Accountant. The Tribunal found that the majority of the position's tasks related to clerical and administrative roles, and the outsourcing of core accounting functions to an external accountant further supported this conclusion. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the position was not equivalent to, nor substantially equivalent to, the nominated occupation of Accountant, and therefore the position was not genuine.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to approve the nomination, finding that regulation 2.72(10)(f) was not met. The Tribunal also concluded that the certification made by the applicant regarding the tasks of the position was inaccurate.