Brisbane Indian Cultural & Community Services Association (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a nomination application made by Brisbane Indian Cultural & Community Services Association (the applicant) for a Community Worker position. The applicant sought to have the nomination approved, but the delegate had previously decided not to approve it. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically concerning the genuineness of the nominated position and the applicant's financial capacity.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated position of Community Worker was genuine, as required by regulation 2.72(10)(f) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved a qualitative assessment of the position in light of the applicant's stated charitable activities and financial capacity. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's failure to respond to a request for contemporary evidence regarding its charitable activities and the necessity of the nominated position.

The Tribunal reasoned that to satisfy regulation 2.72(10)(f), the nominated position must be genuine, meaning it must align with the nature of the applicant's activities and demonstrate a genuine need for the role. While the applicant claimed to be a charitable organisation and provided a bank statement showing a significant deposit, it failed to provide contemporary evidence of its charitable activities or the requirement for a Community Worker. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted concerns about the applicant's financial viability to sustain a position with a base salary of $54,000 per annum, especially given that an accountant's letter indicated no audit or review of financial statements had been performed. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the delegate or the Tribunal that the position was genuine and that the applicant was providing charitable services in a manner that required the nominee's services.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review not to approve the nomination.