MINECCO PTY LTD (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by MINECCO PTY LTD (the applicant) against a decision to refuse the nomination of a position under the Direct Entry Nomination stream. The nominated position was that of an "Other Sports Coach or Instructor." The core of the dispute revolved around whether there was a genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid individual in the nominated role, and whether the tasks described for the position aligned with the official position description.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the application identified a genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the nominated position under their direct control, and whether the stated duties of the nominee corresponded with the tasks of the nominated occupation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination. It found that while the nominator provided statements and a statutory declaration asserting a genuine need for the position, these lacked specific detail regarding the frequency and extent of the nominee's duties. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the tasks described by the nominator did not fully align with the position description of the nominated role. Consequently, the Tribunal did not accept the nominator's assertions of a genuine need, nor the Region Certifying Body Form 1404 which relied upon them. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of regulation 5.19(4).