Oz Trading Japan Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Tribunal of a decision to refuse the nomination by Oz Trading Japan Pty Ltd. The core dispute revolved around whether the nominated position of Quality Assurance Manager was genuine, as required by regulation 2.72(10)(f) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under section 140GB(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal was required to assess the genuineness of the nominated position, a task that involves a qualitative assessment and comparison with the nominated occupation, as established in *Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP* [2016] FCA 30. The applicant had provided a letter dated 24 October 2017, which was considered insufficient and outdated by the Tribunal. Crucially, the applicant failed to respond to a request for further information issued under subsection 359(2) of the Act, which specifically sought evidence demonstrating compliance with regulation 2.72.

The Tribunal reasoned that the lack of contemporary information, coupled with the applicant's failure to respond to the specific request for information regarding the genuineness of the position, meant that the criteria under regulation 2.72(10)(f) were not met. The Tribunal noted that it had previously considered issuing a further request but decided against it, given the prior unsuccessful request and the applicant's representation, which implied an opportunity for professional advice. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.