acidgreen pty ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by acidgreen pty ltd for approval of a nominated position under the Direct Entry stream of the subclass 482 visa program. The applicant sought approval for a Web Designer position for a proposed employee, Didier Esparaza Lachere. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the requirements for the nomination approval, specifically under regulation 5.19(4)(h) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominated position's tasks corresponded to the occupation of Web Designer as specified by the Minister, whether the occupation was applicable to the proposed employee, and whether specified training requirements were met, as per regulation 5.19(4)(h)(i). Alternatively, the Tribunal considered whether the position and nominator's business were located in regional Australia, if there was a genuine need for the position that could not be filled locally, and if the tasks corresponded to a specified occupation, as per regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii). The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's failure to provide requested information to substantiate their claims.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the tasks of the nominated position corresponded to those of a Web Designer, nor was there evidence of the nominee meeting specified training requirements. Consequently, regulation 5.19(4)(h)(i) was not satisfied. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the nominated position was not located in regional Australia, thus failing to meet the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii). The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not responded to a request for further information, nor sought an extension of time, and therefore had to make a decision based on the material before it.

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