Audiburg Wine Group Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Audiburg Wine Group Pty Ltd against a decision to refuse the approval of a nominated position for a Marketing Specialist. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under section 140GB(2) of the Act and regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The core of the dispute centred on whether the nominated position was genuine and whether the duties associated with it substantially aligned with the nominated occupation.

The Tribunal considered the requirement under regulation 2.72(10)(f) that the nominated position must be genuine, referencing the approach in *Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP* [2016] FCA 30, which involves a qualitative assessment of the position against the nominated occupation. The delegate had refused the nomination, finding that the proposed duties, such as maintaining client relationships and liaising with suppliers for marketing materials, appeared to be less-skilled tasks that could be performed by non-skilled employees, rather than aligning substantially with a Marketing Specialist role. The Tribunal noted that while various documents were provided to the Department in support of the application, this material was substantially out of date, and no recent information had been provided to the Tribunal to address the delegate's concerns about the genuineness of the position and its alignment with the business.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination. It found that the applicant had not provided sufficient recent information to satisfy the Tribunal that the nominated position was genuine and that the proposed duties aligned with the nominated occupation, despite the delegate specifically raising these issues. The Tribunal emphasised that all applicable criteria under regulation 2.72 must be satisfied at the time of the decision, and the provided information was considered outdated.