Australian Dispatch Company Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Australian Dispatch Company Pty Ltd (the applicant) against a decision to refuse the approval of a nominated position under the Direct Entry Nomination stream of the Employer Nomination scheme. The applicant sought to nominate a Project Coordinator position.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if there was a genuine need for the nominated position and if the nominated employee was still employed in that capacity, considering the applicant's business circumstances.

The Tribunal considered evidence that the nominated employee, Mr Kumar, was no longer employed in the Project Coordinator role on a full-time permanent basis due to financial pressures on the company, stemming from increased competition in the taxi industry. While the applicant argued that Mr Kumar continued to provide valuable services as a taxi operator and cultural advisor, the Tribunal found that this did not satisfy the requirement of a genuine need for a paid employee in the nominated position under the applicant's direct control, as stipulated by regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii). The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.