Church of Scientology Australia (Migration)

The Church of Scientology Australia sought approval for its nomination of a training position for Ms Jung, a nominee for a Subclass 407 Training visa. The core dispute concerned whether the proposed training program was a genuine opportunity tailored to the nominee's needs, as required by migration regulations. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining if the applicant met the criteria for approval of its nomination.

The Tribunal was required to assess whether the nominated program was offered as a genuine training opportunity, a key criterion under regulation 2.72A(16) of the Migration Regulations. This involved examining the information provided by the applicant in support of the nomination, particularly concerning the objectives of the training program and the additional or enhanced skills the nominee would acquire. The Tribunal also considered the nominee's extensive visa and work history with the applicant, which included multiple previous visas nominated by the Church for the occupation of Religious Worker.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted the absence of any updated submissions or evidence provided by the applicant, despite an invitation from the Tribunal to do so. The Tribunal reviewed the nomination application, a letter from Mr Hunter titled 'Offer of Training Program', and a document titled 'Scientology Ministerial Training Program'. It observed that the nomination form referred to an attached letter for details on training objectives and skills acquisition. The accompanying letter stated the nominee wished to become an ordained Minister and required an official Ministerial training program, involving course room study and practical apprenticeship in religious devotions. However, the Tribunal found that the provided information lacked specific details indicating the program was tailored to the nominee's particular needs or that it offered enhanced skills beyond her existing extensive experience. Furthermore, the proposed training period had already expired.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's nomination met the applicable criteria for approval. The decision under review to refuse the nomination was therefore affirmed.