DORATILE PTY LTD (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Doratile Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination for a wall and floor tiler (ANZSCO 333411) position under the Migration Regulations 1994. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically whether the nominated position was genuine and full-time, and whether the applicant had provided sufficient information to demonstrate this.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominated position was genuine and full-time, as required by regulation 2.72(10) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had failed to provide requested information within the prescribed period, which was relevant to its assessment of the genuineness of the position. The Tribunal was guided by the principles established in cases such as *Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP* [2016] FCA 30, which affirmed the need for a qualitative assessment of the nominated position against the occupation details.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination because the applicant failed to satisfy the Tribunal that the nominated position was genuine and full-time. Despite a request for updated and current information on 8 September 2023, the applicant had not provided details regarding business operations, turnover, workload, or financial statements for the last three financial years. Furthermore, no updated evidence had been provided since the application for review in April 2021 to demonstrate the continued operation of the business, its capacity to pay, or its need for a full-time wall and floor tiler. In the absence of this crucial information, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the position met the requirements of regulation 2.72(10).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.