Proadvance Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Proadvance Pty Ltd against a decision to refuse the approval of a nomination for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa under the Direct Entry Nomination stream. The dispute centred on whether the nominator, Proadvance Pty Ltd, met the requirements of Regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by a member of the Tribunal, Amanda Mendes Da Costa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Proadvance Pty Ltd had demonstrated it had the financial capacity to employ the nominated individual for at least two years and to pay them at least the annual market salary rate for the occupation, as required by Regulation 5.19(9)(g). The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had met the broader requirements of Regulation 5.19(4) for the approval of the nomination.

The Tribunal found that Proadvance Pty Ltd had failed to provide any financial information, such as profit and loss statements, balance sheets, or business activity statements, to substantiate its capacity to employ the nominee. This lack of financial documentation was also evident in the information provided to the Department and subsequently to the Tribunal. Despite being given an opportunity to respond, Proadvance Pty Ltd did not provide the necessary financial evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the nominator met the requirement under Regulation 5.19(9)(g), and therefore, the nomination could not be approved.

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