Superstar Home & Office Cleaning Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Superstar Home & Office Cleaning Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination for a Subclass 457 visa. The applicant nominated the occupation of Customer Service Manager (149212) for Ms Arilene Alves Da Silva. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the nominated occupation of Customer Service Manager, as specified in IMMI 17/060, was applicable to the nominee, given the inapplicability conditions attached to that occupation. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the nominated position met the requirements of regulation 2.72(10)(aa) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that the nominated occupation and its code correspond to an occupation and code specified in the relevant instrument and that the occupation is applicable to the identified person in accordance with that instrument.

The Tribunal reasoned that IMMI 17/060, which was in effect at the time of the nomination and had not been superseded, listed Customer Service Manager (149212) but subjected it to several inapplicability conditions. These conditions included a nominated base salary of less than AUD65,000, the position predominantly involving direct client transactional interaction, and the business having an annual turnover of less than AUD1 million. Evidence presented indicated that the nominated position had a base salary of $58,000, predominantly involved direct client interaction, and the business's annual trading revenue for the year ended 30 June 2017 was $246,791, which is less than AUD1 million. The Tribunal concluded that because the business's annual turnover was less than AUD1 million, the nominated occupation was excluded from the specifications of nominated occupations under IMMI 17/060.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved. The decision under review to refuse the nomination was affirmed.