G MOUSSA & M MOUSSA (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by G Moussa & M Moussa, a partnership operating as Southern Cross Property Maintenance and Constructions, for the approval of a nominated position for Khushbu Kantilal Patel under the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to review the delegate's decision to refuse the nomination. Neither the applicant, the nominee, nor their agent attended the hearing, and no further information was provided to the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominator, G Moussa & M Moussa, met the requirements for approving a nominated position, specifically in light of adverse information obtained by the Department. This adverse information related to the nominee allegedly not performing the duties consistent with the nominated role of Contract Administrator, as evidenced by departmental site visits and interviews. The Tribunal had to determine if the evidence gathered by the Department outweighed the applicant's assertions and if the nominator satisfied the criteria under regulation 5.19(3)(g)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires that there be no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with them.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the adverse information gathered by the Department, which indicated that the nominee's tasks were more administrative in nature and not consistent with the duties of a Contract Administrator as defined by ANZSCO. Despite the nominator providing a statutory declaration, the Department's evidence, including observations from site visits and interviews, was considered to be more compelling. The Tribunal noted that no explanation was provided for the discrepancy, nor was any further information submitted to counter the adverse findings. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the nominator did not meet the requirement of regulation 5.19(3)(g)(i) due to the adverse information known to the Department.

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