1600181 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 886 visa, where the applicant sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse the visa. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant possessed "competent English" as required by clause 886.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining if the applicant met this criterion.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had demonstrated "competent English" in accordance with Regulation 1.15C. This regulation specifies that competent English can be satisfied by achieving a minimum score of 6 in each of the four components of an IELTS test, or a score in another specified test, conducted within two years of the application lodgement. Alternatively, holding a specified passport type could satisfy the requirement. The applicant did not hold a specified passport.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, which included IELTS test results from 19 March 2016 and 20 August 2016. The test from 19 March 2016 showed scores of 6.5 for listening, 5.5 for reading, 6 for writing, and 6.5 for speaking, with an overall band score of 6. The test from 20 August 2016 yielded scores of 6.5 for listening, 5.5 for reading, 5.5 for writing, and 7 for speaking, with an overall band score of 6. As the applicant did not achieve a score of at least 6 in each of the four components in either test, the Tribunal concluded that she had not demonstrated competent English as required by clause 886.213. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's personal circumstances and anxiety regarding testing but found no evidence before it that satisfied the English language requirement.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the grant of the Subclass 886 visa, as the applicant failed to meet the essential criteria for the visa.