G.M. Chemicals Aust International Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision to refuse the approval of a nominated position for a Chemical Plant Operator under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream. The applicant, G.M. Chemicals Aust International Pty Ltd, sought to have a nomination approved for a visa holder. The Tribunal, presided over by Member Antonio Dronjic, reviewed the evidence and submissions presented by the parties.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the nominator possessed the financial capacity to maintain the nominated employee for the required period, if the nominee would be employed full-time for at least two years on terms that did not preclude extension, and if the nominator had met its training obligations and had a satisfactory record of compliance. The Tribunal also considered whether there was any adverse information concerning the nominator.

The Tribunal found that the nominator's financial statements revealed consistent trading losses from the 2015/16 to 2019/20 financial years, raising doubts about its capacity to provide the nominee with at least two years of full-time employment. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the nominator could operate its business without the nominee undertaking duties beyond those of a Chemical Plant Operator, such as sales and administration. The Tribunal also found it difficult to accept the evidence that the business owner, Mr. Yousif, had worked full-time for seven years without receiving any remuneration, given his significant financial investment in the company and his wife's shareholding despite no involvement in the business. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria under regulation 5.19(3).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination. As the applicant had not sought to satisfy the criteria for the Direct Entry nomination stream, they had not met the requirements under regulation 5.19(4), leading to the refusal of the nomination approval.