HHJM Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a review of a decision to refuse the nomination of a position for a Hair or Beauty Salon Manager under the Direct Entry stream. The applicant was HHJM Pty Ltd, the nominating business.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the general requirements for approval of a nomination under regulation 5.19(4) and the specific requirements for the Direct Entry stream under regulation 5.19(9) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business, if there was a genuine need for the nominated position, and if the nominee would be employed full-time for at least two years on terms that did not preclude an extension.

The Tribunal noted that it had invited the nominator to provide updated information addressing these requirements under section 359(2) of the Migration Act 1958, but no response was received. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked sufficient information to be satisfied that the business was actively and lawfully operating, that there was a genuine need for the position, or that the nominee would be employed for at least two years. The Tribunal concluded that requirements under regulations 5.19(9)(a), (d), and (g) were not met, which in turn meant that regulation 5.19(4)(f) was not met.

As the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements of regulation 5.19, it was required under regulation 5.19(3)(b) to refuse the nomination. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.