Air Voice Group PTY LTD (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Air Voice Group Pty Ltd for approval of a nominated position under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant sought to nominate an individual for the position of Retail Manager. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need to employ the nominee and whether the tasks of the nominated position aligned with the relevant ANZSCO description. The decision was made by Karen McNamara, Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met all the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the application was compliant, if the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, if there was any adverse information known to Immigration, and if the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Crucially, the Tribunal also had to assess whether the tasks of the position were genuine, corresponded to an applicable occupation, and if there was a genuine need for the nominee's employment, particularly in light of the position being located in a regional area.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented, including oral testimony and written submissions. It was satisfied that the application met the formal requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(a), including identifying a genuine need for the nominator to employ the nominee under their direct control, with directors relying on autonomous store management. The Tribunal found that the applicant was actively and lawfully operating its Vodafone dealerships, satisfying regulation 5.19(4)(b). Furthermore, no adverse information was known to Immigration, and the applicant had a satisfactory record of workplace relations compliance, meeting regulations 5.19(4)(f) and (g) respectively. The Tribunal applied the criteria under regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii), finding that the position in Mandurah, Western Australia, qualified as regional Australia. The Tribunal was satisfied that the evidence, including the nominee's qualifications and employment history with the applicant, demonstrated a genuine need for their employment in the nominated role.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision under review and substituted a decision approving the nomination.