CHROMAGEN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Chromagen Australia Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination for a position under the Direct Entry stream. The dispute centred on whether the nominated position, Accountant (General) (ANZSCO 221111), and the nominee's proposed duties met the requirements of Regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied all the criteria for nomination approval under Regulation 5.19(4). Specifically, this involved assessing whether the application was compliant, if there was a genuine need for the position, if the nominee's job description substantially corresponded to the ANZSCO listing for Accountant (General), and if the nominator met training benchmark requirements. The Tribunal also had to consider whether there was any adverse information known to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection about the nominator and if the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws.

The Tribunal found that the application was compliant with the formal requirements, including the prescribed fee and necessary certifications. It was satisfied that there was a genuine need for the nominated position, particularly following a change in management approach and financial reporting requirements after the acquisition of a controlling stake in the company by its Israeli parent. The Tribunal concluded that the nominee's job description, while tailored to the specific needs of Chromagen Australia, showed a significant overlap with the generic tasks outlined in the ANZSCO listing for an Accountant (General). The differences were attributed to the generic nature of the ANZSCO description versus the specific requirements of the appointment. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws and that no adverse information was known to the Department. The Tribunal also found that the nominator met the training benchmark requirements.

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