1824634 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for approval of an employer nomination for a Workshop/Office Manager position under the Direct Entry nomination stream. The applicant, who operates a service business and a product business, sought to nominate a prospective employee for the position with a guaranteed annual earnings of $43,000. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements of Regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the genuine need for the position and the financial capacity to employ the nominee for at least two years. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine if all the stipulated criteria for nomination approval had been satisfied.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether the applicant demonstrated a genuine need for the nominated position and possessed the financial capacity to employ the nominee for the required two-year period. This involved scrutinising the applicant's most recent financial statements, which indicated a net loss and negative net equity for the 2018/19 financial year. The Tribunal also had to consider that the nominee had left the applicant's employment almost three years prior to the hearing. Furthermore, the Tribunal needed to evaluate the applicant's assertions about current business improvements and future income generation in light of the available financial evidence and the impact of economic conditions, such as COVID-19 restrictions.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted the absence of contemporary financial evidence to support the applicant's claims of improved financial standing. The 2018/19 financial statements revealed significant losses, raising concerns about the business's capacity to afford the nominated salary. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated the genuine need for the position or the financial capacity to employ the nominee for the stipulated duration. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination, concluding that the applicant had not met the requirements of Regulation 5.19(4).