A Genuine Position: Overturning a Subclass 482 Nomination Refusal

The challenge

Our client, an automotive services business, wanted to sponsor a valued long-term employee for a Subclass 482 visa, nominating the role of Customer Service Manager. The employee had been with the business for years and had stepped into the role as the company grew.

The Department refused the nomination. It was not satisfied that the position was “genuine,” as required by regulation 2.72(10)(a). The unstated concern was a familiar one: a “manager” role nominated by a hands-on business in a practical, lower-skilled industry can be viewed with suspicion, as though the position has been dressed up to fit a skilled occupation rather than reflecting a real operational need.

There was also a significant complication. After the COVID-19 pandemic hit the automotive sector, the business had run into trading difficulties, entered external administration, and executed a Deed of Company Arrangement. By the time of the review the company was trading again and had met its obligations, but its corporate status raised a threshold question about whether the review could even continue.

Our approach

We addressed the matter on two fronts.

First, the procedural threshold. We engaged directly with the administrator and obtained clear confirmation that control of the company had reverted to its director, that the review fell outside the scope of the administration, and that there was no objection to it continuing. On that basis we satisfied the Tribunal that the proceeding could properly continue.

Second, and at the heart of the case, the genuineness of the role. We built a comprehensive, evidence-led case rather than relying on assertion:

• Direct evidence. We prepared detailed statements from the director and the nominee, and led oral evidence from both at the hearing, explaining how the role functioned in practice.
• Documentary proof. We produced records of the customer-service function the business actually performed, including its client outreach and service records, in a paginated and indexed evidence bundle.
• Task-by-task analysis. We prepared a detailed comparison mapping the duties actually performed against the ANZSCO description for the nominated occupation, cross-referenced to the supporting documents.

Crucially, we showed the role was not window-dressing but a genuine commercial necessity. In a competitive industry where the business held no exclusive contracts and clients could leave at any time, maintaining consistent service quality across multiple teams and sites was central to keeping the business alive, and the nominee genuinely performed that managing and customer-relations function.

The outcome

The Tribunal found the director and the nominee to be straightforward and credible witnesses. It accepted that the duties of the role substantially aligned with the nominated occupation, and was satisfied that the position was both genuine and full-time.

It set aside the refusal and remitted the nomination with the order that it meets regulation 2.72(10), clearing the path for the sponsorship to proceed.

A key role, and a key employee, stayed in place.

Why it matters

“Genuineness” refusals are among the most common obstacles in employer-sponsored migration, particularly where a skilled occupation is nominated by a business operating in a hands-on or lower-skilled industry. Overcoming them takes more than a job description. It requires a careful, evidence-led demonstration of how the role actually functions within the business and how its duties correspond to the nominated occupation. This matter also shows the value of working through corporate complications, such as external administration, so that they do not derail an otherwise strong application. For our client, that combination preserved both an important position and the person who fills it.

Details in this case study have been anonymised to protect our client’s privacy.