Classic Scissors Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Classic Scissors Pty Ltd against a decision to refuse the nomination of a position under the Temporary Residence Transition stream of the subclass 457 visa program. The nominated occupation was Hairdresser (ANZSCO 391111), with the proposed nominee being Mr Anand Rana. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant, Classic Scissors Pty Ltd, could demonstrate the financial capacity to provide full-time employment for two years and whether the business was genuinely operating as a viable entity.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia and whether it had the financial capacity to meet the proposed salary for the nominee, which was to be increased to $54,000 per annum. This involved scrutinising the financial documents provided by the applicant, including Business Activity Statements and financial reports, to ascertain if they supported the declared payroll expenditure and the ability to meet the wage commitments for the nominee and other employees.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the relevant criteria. The court's reasoning focused on the financial capacity of the business. Evidence presented, including financial reports and payroll figures, indicated that the total wages paid in 2014, 2015, and 2016 were insufficient to cover the agreed annual wages for the two subclass 457 visa holders alone, let alone other employees. Furthermore, discrepancies were noted in rent payments and a lack of evidence regarding director salaries. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated it would be able to meet the proposed increased wage commitment for the nominee, nor that it was operating a viable business capable of providing full-time employment for two years as required by regulation 5.19(3)(d).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination.