Greek Bakery (Australia) Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Greek Bakery (Australia) Pty Ltd against the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of its nomination for a Corporate Services Manager position. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically in relation to the nominated occupation and the business's circumstances.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominated occupation, Corporate Services Manager (ANZSCO 132111), was specified in the relevant legislative instrument (LIN 19/048) and whether it applied to the nominee in accordance with that instrument. Crucially, the Tribunal had to determine if the nomination satisfied the "applicable circumstances" or caveats attached to this occupation, which included conditions relating to annual earnings, intra-corporate transfers, annual turnover, and the number of employees. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had provided all necessary information to satisfy the criteria at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination because the applicant failed to respond to an invitation to provide updated information regarding its business and compliance with nomination requirements. The nominated occupation, Corporate Services Manager, was subject to specific inapplicability conditions in LIN 19/048, including requirements that the nominated annual earnings be at least AUD80,000, the business have an annual turnover of at least AUD1,000,000, and the business employ at least five employees. Evidence before the delegate indicated the business had an annual turnover of $0 AUD and employed only two individuals, thus failing to meet these conditions. The Tribunal applied Regulation 2.72(8) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the nominated occupation and its code to correspond to those specified in the relevant instrument, and for the occupation to apply to the nominee in accordance with that instrument.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved and therefore affirmed the decision under review.