ITALIAN QUALITY COATINGS PTY LTD ATF ITALIAN QUALITY COATINGS UNIT TRUST (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by ITALIAN QUALITY COATINGS PTY LTD ATF ITALIAN QUALITY COATINGS UNIT TRUST against a decision to refuse the nomination of Mr Bartolotta for a Subclass 457 visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position of "Customer Service Manager" was genuine and whether the duties associated with the position corresponded with the ANZSCO (Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations) description for that occupation. The case was heard by Miriam Holmes, Senior Member, of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominated position was genuine, as required by regulation 2.72(10)(f) of the Migration Regulations 1994, and whether the duties of the position aligned with the ANZSCO classification for a Customer Service Manager. The Tribunal was required to determine not only if the position existed but also if it was truly what it purported to be, necessitating a qualitative analysis and comparison with the nominated occupation.

The Tribunal's reasoning was guided by the principles established in *Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP*, which affirmed that the genuineness of a nominated position requires more than simply confirming its existence; it demands an assessment of whether the role accurately reflects the nominated occupation. The Tribunal examined the ANZSCO description for "Customer Service Manager," which outlines duties such as developing customer relations policies, ensuring operational efficiency, managing staff, and liaising with organisational units and customers. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the duties associated with the nominated position did not substantially correspond with the ANZSCO requirements for a Customer Service Manager, indicating that the position was not genuine in the sense of being what it purported to be.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination, finding that the applicant had not met the applicable criteria for approval.