VT Architects Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by VT Architects Pty Ltd against a decision to refuse the nomination of an urban and regional planner for a Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination under regulation 2.72 and section 140GBA of the Migration Regulations 1994. The original decision by the delegate was based on a lack of independently verifiable information supporting the applicant's claims, specifically the absence of contracts or financial evidence demonstrating business growth, which had been requested by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominated position was genuine and whether the nominee was duly qualified. Regulation 2.72(10)(f) mandates that the nominated position must be genuine. The Tribunal considered the applicant's business, an architectural firm established in 1998, and its organisational structure, which indicated a small team including architects and a project manager, with the nominee proposed as an urban planner. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had previously engaged external town planners. The description of the nominated occupation, urban and regional planner, as per ANZSCO, involves developing and implementing plans for land use and advising on related factors.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of evidence to support the genuineness of the nominated position and the nominee's qualifications. Despite the applicant providing a letter from an accountant stating compliance with sponsorship obligations and financial responsibilities, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of the nominee's background or experience in urban and regional planning. Crucially, there was no evidence of plans or developments prepared by the nominee, and the provided position description was deemed insufficient to establish the genuineness of the role. The Tribunal also noted the non-appearance of the applicant and nominee at a hearing and the failure to provide requested financial information.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the nomination.