Narooma Medical Centre Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal by Narooma Medical Centre Pty Ltd (the applicant) regarding the approval of a nominated program of occupational training for a Subclass 407 (Training) visa. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements stipulated in the Migration Regulations 1994 for the nomination to be approved. The Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the decision to refuse the nomination.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominee would participate in the nominated program, as required by regulation 2.72A(5), and whether regulation 2.72B applied to the nomination, specifically concerning the purpose of the occupational training and the existence of a bona fide nexus to an overseas employer, as stipulated in regulation 2.72B(6). The Tribunal also considered whether the nominated program constituted a genuine training opportunity for a purpose referred to in regulation 2.72B, as required by regulation 2.72A(16).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to respond to an invitation issued under section 359(2) of the Migration Act 1958. This lack of response resulted in a paucity of contemporary information regarding the nominee's engagement, the financial viability of the applicant's business, and the scale of its organisation. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the nominee would participate in the nominated program, failing regulation 2.72A(5). Furthermore, the absence of information about the claimed overseas employer and the proposed training's link to it meant the Tribunal could not be satisfied that regulation 2.72B(6) was met, thereby failing regulation 2.72A(15).

As the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the applicable requirements for approval of the nomination, it affirmed the decision under review. The Tribunal concluded that the nominated program was not offered as a genuine training opportunity for a purpose referred to in regulation 2.72B, thus failing regulation 2.72A(16). The final order was that the decision not to approve the nomination was affirmed.