Randwick Chemist Pty Ltd ATF Randwick Chemist Trust (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision by the Minister to refuse the nomination of a position for the Temporary Residence Transition stream of a Subclass 457 visa. The applicant, Randwick Chemist Pty Ltd ATF Randwick Chemist Trust, sought to nominate a Customer Service Manager position. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position was genuine and whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the relevant criteria under the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically focusing on whether the nominated position was genuine as required by regulation 2.72(10)(f). This involved assessing whether the tasks of the position, within the context of the applicant's business, were consistent with the tasks of a Customer Service Manager as defined by the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO). The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's current financial circumstances and overall compliance with the nomination requirements at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal's reasoning was primarily based on the applicant's failure to provide requested updated and current information. Despite an invitation from the Tribunal to supply details regarding the nominated position's roles and duties, its correspondence to the ANZSCO description, its place in the organisational structure, and the applicant's financial standing, no response was received. Citing *Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP* [2016] FCA 30, the Tribunal affirmed the approach of qualitatively assessing a nominated position to determine its genuineness. Without the necessary information, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the position was genuine or that the applicant met the other applicable criteria for the nomination.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination. The Tribunal concluded that regulation 2.72(10)(f) had not been met, and it was not satisfied that the applicant had met the applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved.