When Growth Was Questioned, but the Evidence Proved the Role Was Real

The Dream

A construction and design business operating in the Australian Capital Territory had steadily expanded
since its establishment in 2012. With Directors overseeing strategic management and construction
delivery and multiple Project Managers coordinating concurrent projects, the company had grown into a
significant operation. As its portfolio expanded, including securing a large-scale institutional project valued
at approximately $30 million, the need for structured internal contract management became critical.
To support this growth, the business nominated a Contract Administrator under the Subclass 482 visa in
the Short-term stream. The role was designed to manage subcontract agreements, administer variations
and extensions of time, oversee compliance documentation, coordinate progress claims and liaise with
financial institutions, legal representatives and project stakeholders. The goal was operational stability.
The business required a dedicated professional to oversee complex contractual obligations across
multiple projects.

The Problem

The nomination was refused. The Department was not satisfied that the position associated with the
nominated occupation was genuine. Concerns were raised regarding the business structure, its reliance
on subcontractors and whether the role existed to address a genuine operational need or to facilitate a
visa outcome.
The refusal overlooked significant financial growth. Income increased from over $6.1 million to nearly $7.9
million within a year. The business had entered into high-value construction agreements requiring
extensive contractual oversight. Despite this, the genuineness of the role was questioned.

The Solution

The matter was reviewed by the Tribunal. Detailed evidence was provided, including financial statements,
tax returns, Business Activity Statements, organisational charts, contractual agreements, invoices
exceeding $1 million, correspondence with financial institutions and legal representatives and evidence of
labour market testing.
The Tribunal examined the nominated duties against ANZSCO 511111 – Contract Administrator. The
evidence demonstrated alignment with core tasks such as preparing and negotiating contracts, managing
variations, overseeing compliance, analysing project data and advising senior management.
The Tribunal also considered the business structure and accepted that reliance on subcontractors was
commercially and operationally standard within the construction industry. The familial relationship
between a director and the nominee was considered but was outweighed by evidence of genuine
commercial expansion and the nominee’s relevant qualifications and experience.

The Victory

The Tribunal was satisfied that the nominated position was genuine and full time. It set aside the refusal
and remitted the matter for reconsideration with the order that the nomination meets the criteria.
Their Words
“This decision recognises the work our business is actually doing. The role was created because we
needed it, and the evidence showed that clearly.”

If you are in a similar situation, or know someone who may require professional assistance with a visa
nomination, skills assessment, or Tribunal review matter, we encourage you to seek tailored advice.

You may contact Solve Migration for a confidential consultation:
Book a Consultation: https://solvemigration.com/book-an-appointment/
Email: ask@solvemigration.com
Our team can assess your circumstances, identify available pathways, and guide you through each stage
of the process with clear and practical advice.