VSSR Australia Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to refuse a nomination for a Subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa in the Direct Entry stream. The applicant, VSSR Australia Pty Ltd, sought approval for a nomination for the position of Retail Manager in Mount Isa, Queensland, in favour of Ms Loveena Kakkar. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the general requirements for nomination approval under reg 5.19(4) and the specific requirements for the Direct Entry stream under reg 5.19(9) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, whether there was a genuine need for the nominated position, and whether the nominator had the financial capacity to employ the nominee for at least two years. The Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to provide updated financial information, such as tax returns and BAS statements, when requested. Consequently, the Tribunal could only consider outdated documents, which were insufficient to satisfy it that the business was actively and lawfully operating. Furthermore, the applicant did not respond to requests for information demonstrating a genuine need for the position, such as an organisational chart or details of increased business turnover.

The Tribunal reasoned that the failure to provide updated financial information meant it could not be satisfied that the nominator met the requirement of actively and lawfully operating a business under reg 5.19(9)(a). Similarly, the lack of information regarding the genuine need for the position meant that regs 5.19(9)(c) and (d) were not met. The Tribunal also found that it could not be satisfied on the evidence before it that the nominator had the financial capacity to employ the nominee on a full-time basis for at least two years, as required by reg 5.19(9)(g).

As the applicant failed to satisfy several of the requirements for a Direct Entry stream nomination, the Tribunal concluded that reg 5.19(3)(b) mandated the refusal of the nomination. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the original decision to refuse the nomination.