Jack HIllermans Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal regarding the refusal to approve a nominated position for migration purposes. The applicant, Jack Hillermans Pty Ltd, sought approval of a nominated position, which is a prerequisite for certain visa subclasses. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had met the criteria for the approval of this nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the nominated position was genuine and full-time, as stipulated by regulation 2.72(10)(a) and (b) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the position was genuine by qualitatively comparing it to the nominated occupation, a process endorsed in *Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP* [2016] FCA 30. Furthermore, the Tribunal needed to consider the requirement for the position to be full-time, unless it was reasonable to disregard this.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of contemporary information provided by the applicant, particularly in response to an invitation under section 359(2) of the Act. This absence of information meant the Tribunal could not be satisfied about the nominee's current or future employment, the financial viability of the applicant's business, or the current scale of its operations. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it could not be satisfied that the nominee would be employed or that the nominated position aligned with the applicant's current business scope, thus failing to meet the requirements of regulation 2.72(10)(a).

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the applicable criteria for its approval.