C Keay & D Keay (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision to refuse a nomination for a skilled migration visa. The applicant, C Keay & D Keay, sought to have this refusal overturned. The core of the dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for approving a nomination under the Direct Entry stream for the occupation of Bricklayer.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had substantially complied with its superannuation contribution obligations and whether the nominated position was genuine. Further, the Tribunal had to assess if the employment conditions offered to the nominee were less favourable than those provided to Australian citizens or permanent residents performing equivalent work. The Tribunal also considered the impact of amendments made to the Migration Regulations 1994 on 18 March 2018, particularly concerning the definitions of "adverse information" and "associated with."

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirements of Regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994. It noted that for a nomination to be approved, the applicant must be an approved work sponsor and meet various criteria, including having paid any applicable nomination training contribution charge and satisfying labour market testing requirements. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated substantial compliance with superannuation obligations and that the position associated with the occupation was not genuine. Additionally, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the employment conditions offered were not less favourable than those for Australian workers. The Tribunal applied the expanded definitions of "adverse information" and "associated with" introduced by the 18 March 2018 amendments, which clarify that nominations will be refused if bogus documents or false or misleading information have been provided.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.