Quality Commercial Cleaning Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an appeal by Quality Commercial Cleaning Pty Ltd concerning the refusal of an employer nomination for a Secretary (General) position under the Direct Entry stream of the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme. The company sought to nominate Ms. Sarah Caiafa Cesar for the position, which was advertised with a salary of $52,500 per annum and located in Toowoomba, Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the company had demonstrated a genuine need for the nominated employee and whether the position could not be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination. While the company presented evidence of its strong financial performance and growth, and detailed recruitment efforts including job advertisements and engagement with a recruitment agency, it failed to satisfy the specific criteria under regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(C). This sub-regulation requires that for a position located in regional Australia, there must be a genuine need for the nominator to employ the person, and crucially, that the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident living in the same local area. The Tribunal found that the provided evidence, including the advice from the Regional Certifying Body, did not sufficiently demonstrate that all applicants considered lacked the necessary qualifications and experience for the role, particularly given the specific software requirements mentioned.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met all the requirements of regulation 5.19(4). As the company had not sought to satisfy the criteria under the Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream, and therefore had not met the requirements of regulation 5.19(3), the nomination could not be approved. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the original decision to refuse the nomination.