Ironbark Asset Management Pty Ltd (Migration)

This case concerned an application by Ironbark Asset Management Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination of an occupation under the medium-term stream of the Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa program. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements relating to the annual market salary rate for the nominated occupation, particularly in comparison to the earnings of Australian citizens or permanent residents performing equivalent work. The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had met the criteria for approval of the nomination, as stipulated by section 140GB(2) of the Migration Act 1958 and regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant had provided adequate information regarding the annual market salary rate for the nominated occupation and the nominee's earnings, and whether these met the relevant thresholds and were consistent with Australian labour market conditions. A key issue was the absence of employment contracts or payslips for Australian workers performing equivalent work, which the applicant was expected to provide.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to respond to a request for information issued under section 359(2) of the Act. This request sought, among other things, details concerning the annual market salary rate, the nominee's earnings, and evidence of labour market testing. As the applicant did not provide the requested information by the specified deadline, and no extension was granted, the Tribunal determined that it was entitled to proceed to a decision without further steps, pursuant to section 359C and 360(3) of the Act. The Tribunal applied the principle that an applicant who fails to provide requested information loses their entitlement to a hearing, as established in cases such as *Hasran v MIAC* [2010] FCAFC 40.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination. The applicant had not satisfied the Tribunal that the applicable criteria for the nomination's approval had been met, primarily due to the lack of necessary information regarding salary rates and labour market testing.