Hartley Lifecare Incorporated (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered a dispute concerning the approval of a nominated position under the Direct Entry nomination stream of the *Migration Regulations 1994*. The applicant sought approval for a nominated position, but the delegate had refused the nomination. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated position's tasks corresponded to the tasks of an occupation specified in a relevant instrument, as required by regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D) and alternatively, regulation 5.19(4)(h)(i)(A). This involved assessing whether the nominated position of Disability Services Officer was more closely aligned with a higher-skilled occupation or a lower-skilled occupation such as an aged or disabled carer. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had provided sufficient information to satisfy the Tribunal of this correspondence, particularly in light of an invitation to provide updated information.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to respond to an invitation to provide updated and current information regarding the nominated position's roles and duties, and how they corresponded to the ANZSCO description. The delegate had refused the nomination on the basis that the tasks were more aligned with an aged or disabled carer (ANZSCO skill level 4) rather than a Disability Services Officer (skill level 2). Without the requested information, the Tribunal was unable to be satisfied that the tasks of the nominated position corresponded to the tasks of an occupation specified in the relevant instrument, thus failing to meet the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(i) or (ii). As the applicant did not satisfy this crucial criterion, and had not sought to satisfy the criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream, the nomination could not be approved.

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