Muhammad Ihssan Arafeh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for approval of a nomination for a visa, brought by Muhammad Ihssan Arafeh. The dispute centred on whether the nominated position met the requirements of the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by Member Katie Malyon of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically whether the nominated position was genuine and full-time, as required by regulation 2.72(10) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence provided to demonstrate the genuineness and full-time nature of the position, and whether the applicant had provided sufficient information to satisfy these requirements.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that the nominated position was genuine and full-time. While a position description and organisation chart were provided, there was no financial evidence, such as financial statements, tax returns, or business activity statements, to support the business's capacity to financially sustain the nominated salary of $60,000 per annum. The Tribunal noted that publicly available records indicated the applicant's ABN had been cancelled. Citing *Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP* [2016] FCA 30 for the principle of qualitatively assessing a nominated position, the Tribunal concluded that the lack of financial evidence meant it was not satisfied the position was genuine and full-time, thus failing to meet the requirements of regulation 2.72(10).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to approve the nomination.