OM MAHALAXMII WA PTY LTD (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by Bridget Cullen, considered an application by OM MAHALAXMII WA PTY LTD concerning the refusal of a nomination for a position. The core dispute revolved around whether the nominated position, described as a Store Manager at IGA Dawesville, met the requirements for approval under the Direct Entry nomination stream as stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the tasks of the nominated position corresponded to those of an occupation specified by the Minister in a legislative instrument, as required by regulation 5.19(4)(h). Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the predominant duties of the Store Manager role aligned with an ANZSCO Skill Level 2 Retail Manager occupation, or if they were more akin to a lower-skilled position. This involved a fresh consideration of all evidence, though the applicant did not dispute the factual findings made by the original delegate.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that while some aspects of the nominated role, such as maintaining stock records and staff supervision, aligned with a Retail Manager position, other key duties were not sufficiently demonstrated. Notably, the Tribunal concluded that the advertised job description did not reflect a requirement for budgeting skills, suggesting that this significant task was not intended for the nominated position. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the Director, rather than the Store Manager, appeared to hold primary responsibility for the organisation and control of business operations. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the predominant tasks of the nominated position were more closely aligned with an ANZSCO Skill Level 4 Retail Supervisory role, rather than the required Skill Level 2 Retail Manager.

As the applicant failed to demonstrate that the nominated position met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D) or 5.19(4)(h)(i)(A), and had not sought to satisfy the criteria for the Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream under regulation 5.19(3), the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the overall requirements for approval. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.