GOYAL (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an appeal by Mr. Goyal against a decision to refuse him an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the Temporary Residence Transition stream of the Subclass 186 visa. The core dispute concerned whether Mr. Goyal met the requirements of clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, particularly regarding the nominated position and its continued availability.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the position Mr. Goyal was undertaking corresponded to the nominated position of Customer Service Manager, as required by cl. 186.223(1)(a), and whether that nominated position remained available to him, as stipulated by cl. 186.223(4). The initial delegate had found that Mr. Goyal's duties more closely resembled those of a store supervisor or senior sales assistant, rather than a Customer Service Manager. Furthermore, evidence emerged during the Tribunal process indicating a change in Mr. Goyal's employer from A & J Enterprise Holdings Pty Ltd to the Trustee for the Huns Turramurra Trust, raising questions about whether the nominated position was still with the original nominator and whether the business operations had fundamentally changed.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's employment history and the nature of his role. While the original nomination by A & J Enterprise Holdings Pty Ltd had been approved, the Tribunal noted that Mr. Goyal's payslips showed a transfer of employment to the Huns Turramurra Trust from July 2019. Although it was submitted that this represented a mere name change of the nominator, the Tribunal found this assertion unsubstantiated by the provided documentation, particularly concerning the ABN and ACN details. The Tribunal also noted a significant reduction in the scope of Mr. Goyal's Customer Service Manager role, which was no longer spread across multiple franchise sites but confined to only two. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was still performing the functions of the nominated position with the original nominator, nor that the nominated position remained available in the same capacity.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.