TIMBERBOX PTY LTD (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Timberbox Pty Ltd against a decision to refuse a nomination under the Direct Entry nomination stream of the *Migration Regulations 1994*. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the nominated position, described as a carpenter, met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4) of the *Migration Regulations 1994*, particularly concerning the genuine need for the position and its suitability for the proposed employee. The decision was made by Antonio Dronjic, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominated position satisfied the criteria outlined in regulation 5.19(4)(h) of the *Migration Regulations 1994*. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if there was a genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid employee for the position under their direct control, if the position could not be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident residing in the same local area, and if the tasks of the position corresponded to an occupation specified by the Minister. The Tribunal also considered the advice provided by the relevant Regional Certifying Body (RCB) regarding these matters, while acknowledging that such advice was not determinative of the criteria themselves.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that the requirements of regulation 5.19(4) were met. While the Tribunal acknowledged the RCB's advice, it independently assessed the criteria. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had failed to satisfy the necessary conditions for approval under the Direct Entry nomination stream. Consequently, the nomination could not be approved, and the original decision to refuse it was affirmed.