1505748 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered whether the applicant met the requirements for a Skilled - Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visa. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant's skills assessment satisfied clause 189.212(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal also had to determine if the secondary applicants, who were family members, met the criteria to be included in the primary applicant's visa application.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's skills assessment, issued by the Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) on 25 August 2010, was a valid assessment for the purposes of clause 189.212(1) at the time of the invitation to apply for the visa on 28 November 2014. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the currency of the assessment and whether it was for a subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa, which would render it unsuitable for applications made on or after 28 October 2013. Additionally, the Tribunal needed to assess if the secondary applicants met the criteria to be members of the family unit of someone satisfying the primary visa criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 189.212(1) requires a skills assessment by the relevant assessing authority at the time of invitation to apply. For invitations made on or after 1 July 2014, the assessment must be current. While the AACA issued a positive skills assessment on 25 August 2010, and a further assessment on 6 May 2015 based on the original qualifications, the invitation to apply was on 28 November 2014. The Tribunal found that the 2010 assessment was not expressed to have a validity period, and the 2015 assessment was issued after the invitation. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the 2010 assessment was not for a subclass 485 visa. However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of clause 189.212(1) because the skills assessment was not current at the time of invitation. The Tribunal also found that the secondary applicants did not satisfy the secondary visa criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Skilled - Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visas to the applicants.