The Trustee For Namdev Family Trust (Migration)

The matter before the Tribunal concerned an application by The Trustee For Namdev Family Trust for approval of a nomination for a Subclass 482 visa. The dispute arose from a decision not to approve the nomination, which the applicant sought to have set aside. The decision was made by C. Packer, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under section 140GB(2) of the Act, read in conjunction with regulation 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider if the applicant was an approved work sponsor, had paid any applicable nomination training contribution charge, and if the nomination complied with the prescribed process, including the labour market testing requirements. Further issues included whether there was any adverse information known to Immigration about the applicant or associated persons, whether the nominator was a standard business sponsor, and whether any debts under section 140ZO of the Act had been paid. The Tribunal also had to assess if the nominated position was genuine and full-time, and if the nominated occupation and its code corresponded to a specified occupation in the relevant instrument.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on a detailed assessment of each requirement under regulation 2.72. It found that the nomination was made in accordance with the prescribed process, including the use of the approved form, payment of fees and charges, and the identification of the nominee and occupation details. The Tribunal was satisfied that no adverse information was known to Immigration and that the applicant was a standard business sponsor with no outstanding debts. Crucially, the Tribunal found the nominated position to be genuine, supported by extensive documentation including financial statements, tax returns, and a skills assessment for the nominee. The Tribunal applied the principles from *Cargo First Pty Ltd v MIBP* [2016] FCA 30 in assessing the genuineness of the position.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met all applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to approve the nomination and substituted a decision approving the nomination.