AR LAW SERVICES were retained in this matter over 4 years ago. As is often the case, we arrive at the scene like an ambulance often does – to save the case that a dodgy migration agent has completely messed up: and this was no different. The business who retained us is one of Australia’s leading timber product manufactures. They had a good story to tell, but had been poorly advised by their dodgy migration agent.
In brief the applicant applied for approval to nominate the occupation of Program or Project Administrator. A nomination of an occupation for a Subclass 457 visa is made under s 140GB of the Act and reg 2.73 of the Regulations. Regulations 2.72(3) to (12) prescribe the criteria that must be satisfied for the Minister to approve a nomination by a person. The delegate decided not to approve the nomination on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy r.2.72(10)(f) because it did not establish that the position associated with the nominated occupation was genuine.
Following numerous submission – including an extensive and very detailed business plan and business projections – AR LAW SERVICES convinced the member and the nomination was granted. It should be noted this was all done “on the papers” that is the matter did not have to go to trial, hence the client was spared the expense and stress of going to Court/Tribunal.
Work visas (457, 482 & ENS) Nomination refusal – winning cases AAT appeal, talk to us. Don’t risk your visa, your money or your future with a dodgy migration agent!
