Pilbara Juice & Smoothy Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning Pilbara Juice & Smoothy Pty Ltd, the nominating entity, and a visa applicant seeking approval for a nomination under the Direct Entry stream. The dispute centred on whether the nominated position of Retail Manager corresponded to the duties of an occupation specified in the relevant instrument and whether the visa applicant was operating at the required skill level.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the nomination met all the requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the tasks of the nominated position aligned with those of a Retail Manager (General), ANZSCO 142111, a Skill Level 2 occupation, and whether the visa applicant's responsibilities, experience, qualifications, and attributes substantially matched the requirements for this role. Further considerations included the genuineness of the need for the position, its location in regional Australia, and whether it could be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident.

The Tribunal found that the nominating entity, operating a Boost Juice outlet in Karratha, employed six staff, including the visa applicant. The applicant possessed an Advanced Diploma of Leadership Management and their responsibilities, experience, and attributes aligned with the duties of a Retail Manager. The Tribunal acknowledged the challenges of recruiting and retaining management staff in regional areas, exacerbated by COVID-19 related migration restrictions. It was satisfied that the remuneration and employment conditions were equivalent to those for an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work. The Tribunal also confirmed that there was no adverse information known to Immigration regarding the nominator and that the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that the tasks of the position corresponded to the specified occupation and that there was a genuine need for the position, which could not be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.