Eagle Boys Parramatta Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Eagle Boys Parramatta Pty Ltd (the applicant) against the decision to refuse its nomination for a standard business sponsor. The nominated occupation was Accountant (General) (ANZSCO 221111). The dispute centred on whether the nominated position met the applicability conditions stipulated in the Migration Regulations 1994 and associated instruments.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominated occupation of Accountant (General) was applicable to the position offered by the applicant, and whether the nominated position was genuine. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the position constituted a clerical, bookkeeper, or accounting clerk role, and whether the applicant's annual turnover of less than $1,000,000 AUD rendered the occupation inapplicable. The Tribunal also had to assess if the nominated position was genuine, given the applicant's current employment of an accountant and its practice of outsourcing accounting work.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicability conditions outlined in instrument IMMI 17/060, as referenced in regulation 2.72(10)(aa) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal found that condition 6 of IMMI 17/060, which states that the position must not be a clerical, bookkeeper, or accounting clerk position, was not satisfied. This conclusion was based on the applicant's inconsistent submissions regarding its accounting practices, including outsourcing and the provision of financial statements prepared by external accountants. Furthermore, condition 19 of IMMI 17/060 rendered the occupation inapplicable if the business's annual turnover was less than $1,000,000 AUD. The Tribunal was not satisfied, based on the financial information provided, that the applicant's turnover exceeded this threshold. The Tribunal also considered regulation 2.72(10)(f), which requires the nominated position to be genuine, and found that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate this.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination, finding that the applicant had not met the applicable criteria for approval.