NEETA SHARMA (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a nomination for a Subclass 457 visa. The applicant had nominated the occupation of 'Hairdresser'. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the nominated position was genuine, as stipulated by regulation 2.72(10)(f) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirement that the nominated position of 'Hairdresser' was genuine. This was particularly in light of concerns raised by the original decision maker regarding the scale, scope, and staffing structure of the business, and the lack of independently verifiable evidence of current business activity levels. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had lost their entitlement to a hearing due to a failure to respond to the Tribunal's requests for information.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided any submissions or further evidence since lodging the application for review, despite being invited to do so by the Tribunal. The material previously provided to the Department was over 20 months old and considered substantially out of date. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided recent information demonstrating the need for the position or its genuineness, nor had they responded to the Tribunal's request for information within the extended prescribed period. Consequently, the Tribunal was left with very limited and outdated information and had not been able to take oral evidence from the applicant.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination, concluding that it was not satisfied that the applicant had met the criteria for approval, specifically the genuineness of the nominated position.