Kalra Group Aust Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning the approval of a nomination made by Kalra Group Aust Pty Ltd. The core dispute revolved around whether the nominated position was genuine, a key criterion for approving the nomination under migration regulations. The Tribunal considered evidence including departmental decisions, company financial information, business descriptions, advertising materials, and oral testimony from the applicant's director and the nominee.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically focusing on whether the nominated position was genuine as per regulation 2.72(10)(f) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing if the nominee possessed the required qualifications and experience for the nominated occupation, if the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those for an Australian citizen or permanent resident in an equivalent role, and if there was any adverse information known to Immigration concerning the applicant or nominee. The Tribunal also had to consider if the nominated occupation and its code corresponded to those specified in the relevant instrument, IMMI17/060, and if the occupation was applicable to the nominee.

The Tribunal's reasoning centred on a detailed examination of the evidence against the requirements of the Migration Regulations. It found that the nominee had provided sufficient evidence of her qualifications and experience as a hairdresser, exceeding the minimum requirement of two years' relevant work experience stipulated by IMMI17/060. The Tribunal was satisfied that no adverse information was known to Immigration and that the nominated occupation, Hairdresser (ANZSCO 391111), was applicable to the nominee. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment would be no less favourable than those for an Australian equivalent and that the position itself was genuine.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.