1800 GJ Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by 1800 GJ Pty Ltd concerning the approval of a nominated position for a Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position of Transport Company Manager met the legislative requirements for approval, particularly concerning the genuineness of the position and the evidence provided regarding the business's turnover and staffing.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether 1800 GJ Pty Ltd had satisfied the criteria for the approval of the nomination under the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically focusing on whether the nominated occupation and its associated details corresponded to specified lists, whether the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those for an Australian worker, and whether the position itself was genuine. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented, including business turnover figures, staffing requirements, and the nature of the tasks involved in the nominated role, against the requirements of regulations 2.72 and 140GBA of the Act.

The Tribunal found that 1800 GJ Pty Ltd had met all applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved. It was satisfied that the company was a standard business sponsor and had followed the prescribed nomination process. The nominated occupation, Transport Company Manager, and its corresponding ANZSCO code were found to be listed in the relevant instrument, and the Tribunal was satisfied that the caveats introduced on 1 July 2017 did not apply, as the business had more than five employees and an annual turnover exceeding AUD1,000,000. Furthermore, the evidence, including a job description and a statement from the Managing Director, indicated that the position did not predominantly involve low-skilled tasks. The Tribunal also confirmed that the terms and conditions of employment would be no less favourable than those offered to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous decision not to approve the nomination and substituted it with a decision that the nomination be approved.