MSSV Auscol Education Consultants Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by MSSV Auscol Education Consultants Pty Ltd (the applicant) against a decision to refuse the nomination of a Technical Sales Representative position. The applicant sought to nominate an individual for a Subclass 457 visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position was genuine and whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the nominee's ability to perform the outlined duties.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for the approval of the nomination, specifically focusing on Regulation 2.72(10)(f) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that the nominated position must be genuine. This involved assessing whether the proposed role aligned with the duties described in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) for a Technical Sales Representative and whether the applicant had demonstrated genuine recruitment activity.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the nominated position was genuine. While the applicant provided a business profile for their operation, Grasshopper, which assists Colombian students with Australian education provider applications, and a table comparing the proposed role's tasks with ANZSCO descriptions, the Tribunal found this insufficient. Crucially, the Tribunal noted a lack of evidence of professional recruitment activity and that the applicant did not respond when the Tribunal attempted to contact them for further information. The Tribunal applied the principle established in *Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP* [2016] FCA 30, which allows for a qualitative assessment of the position against the nominated occupation to determine its genuineness.

The Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant had met the applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved. Consequently, the decision under review to refuse the nomination was affirmed.