1607794 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision to refuse the nomination of Shandong Law. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Shandong Law met the criteria for approving its nomination under the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the applicable requirements, specifically r.2.72 of the Regulations and s.140GBA of the Act, had been satisfied.

The Tribunal was required to assess if Shandong Law had demonstrated a genuine need to employ a person in the nominated occupation of Human Resources Manager. This involved examining whether the proposed salary for the nominee, Ms. Liu, was consistent with the nominated role and whether the terms and conditions of employment offered were no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident for equivalent work. A key consideration was whether the position itself was genuine, as stipulated by r.2.72(10)(f) of the Regulations, and whether the nominated occupation's tasks were substantially reflected in the proposed role.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the initial nomination proposed an annual salary of $60,000 for Ms. Liu as a Human Resources Manager. However, subsequent evidence indicated her salary had been increased to $8,000 per month, equating to $96,000 annually. This revised salary aligned more closely with the weekly earnings of a Solicitor ($1,600 per week, or $83,200 per annum) as indicated by an updated Job Outlook, rather than the nominated occupation. The Tribunal found that Shandong Law had not adequately demonstrated a genuine need for a Human Resources Manager, particularly in light of the salary information and the focus on the nominee's remuneration being benchmarked against a Solicitor's pay. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Shandong Law met the criteria for the nomination to be approved.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.