Melbournians Furniture (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Melbournians Furniture Pty Ltd for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to approve its nomination of a position for a Subclass 482 visa under the Medium-term stream. The applicant had lodged the nomination on 21 February 2020. The delegate refused approval on the basis that the nominated position was not genuine, as required by subregulation 2.72(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The applicant subsequently applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically focusing on whether the nominated position was genuine. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant was an approved work sponsor and had met other regulatory requirements, including those relating to the nomination process, the absence of adverse information, and labour market testing. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to provide further information to address these requirements, but no response was received.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that while the nomination process and the absence of adverse information appeared to be met, a critical deficiency was the applicant's status as a standard business sponsor. The Department's file contained no record of such approval, and the applicant failed to provide this information when requested by the Tribunal. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the genuineness of the position, referencing the delegate's reasoning which highlighted the familial relationship between the nominee and the director of the applicant company. The delegate concluded that the nomination appeared to be facilitated for the nominee's benefit rather than to fill a genuine skill shortage, a concern amplified by the lack of response from the applicant to address these issues.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. It found that the applicant had not met the requirement of being a standard business sponsor and that the nominated position was not considered genuine. The Tribunal made its decision based on the information available on the Department's file and the Tribunal's own file, as the applicant did not respond to the invitation to provide further information.