Hair Salon Group Pty Ltd (Migration)

Hair Salon Group Pty Ltd (Migration) concerned a review of a decision to refuse the approval of a nominated position for a Subclass 407 Training visa. The applicant, Hair Salon Group Pty Ltd, sought to nominate Ms Tissier for a Marketing Specialist position. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of its nomination under section 140GB(2) of the Act, specifically in relation to regulation 2.72A and the alternative criteria set out in regulation 2.72B.

The central legal issue was whether the nominated training program satisfied the requirements of regulation 2.72B(4), which pertains to occupational training for capacity building overseas through an overseas qualification. This regulation requires the Minister to be satisfied that the nominee is required to complete no more than six months of practical experience, research, or observation to obtain a foreign qualification, and that the training is a structured workplace-based program tailored to the nominee's needs. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had provided sufficient updated information to demonstrate compliance with these requirements, particularly in response to an invitation issued under section 359(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the delegate had previously refused the nomination because the proposed training period of seven months and seven days exceeded the six-month limit stipulated in regulation 2.72B(4)(a). Furthermore, while a certificate from IESEG School of Management was provided, it did not definitively establish that the proposed training was a specified course requirement for Ms Tissier's Master's qualification. Crucially, the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's invitation under section 359(2) to provide updated information demonstrating current compliance with the regulations. In the absence of such information, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the applicable criteria for approval of its nomination.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.