Saachi PL (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Saachi PL (Migration) concerning the approval of a nominated position for a Café or Restaurant Manager. The applicant sought to have the nominated position approved, which is a prerequisite for certain visa subclasses. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position met the regulatory requirements for genuineness and full-time employment.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominated position associated with the occupation of Café or Restaurant Manager was genuine and a full-time position, as required by regulation 2.72(10) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence provided by the applicant against these criteria, considering whether it was reasonable to disregard the full-time requirement. The Tribunal also had to determine if it was satisfied that the applicant met the applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved under section 140GB(2) of the Migration Act 1958.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of current information to satisfy the genuineness and full-time requirements of the nominated position. While acknowledging that some evidence had been provided in June 2019, the Tribunal noted that this information was over three years old by mid-2022. Despite an invitation to provide updated and current information, the applicant failed to do so. Consequently, in the absence of contemporary details regarding the applicant's operations and financial standing, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the position was genuine or full-time, nor did it consider it reasonable to disregard the full-time requirement. The Tribunal applied the principles established in cases such as *Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP* [2016] FCA 30, which permits a qualitative assessment of the nominated position.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Saachi PL met the criteria for the nomination to be approved, and therefore, the decision not to approve the nomination was upheld.