Ahmed (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking review of a decision not to grant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, specifically the Post-Study Work Stream of the Subclass 485 visa. The core dispute centred on whether the applicant met the Australian study requirement at the time of their visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant satisfied clause 485.231 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires an applicant to hold a specified qualification for which they have met the 'Australian study requirement' in the six months immediately preceding the visa application. The Tribunal had to ascertain whether the applicant's study for their Master of Accounting (Professional) qualification met this requirement, given the timing of its completion relative to the visa application date.

The Tribunal reasoned that the 'Australian study requirement' is satisfied if a person completes one or more specified qualifications, registered courses, undertaken in Australia while holding a study-authorising visa, over a minimum of 16 calendar months and two academic years of study, with all instruction in English. The applicant's completion letter indicated qualification for the award of the Master of Accounting (Professional) on 5 February 2019. The applicant had initially provided an incorrect completion date of 20 January 2019, later amending it to 5 February 2019, explaining that their student visa was expiring and the completion letter had not yet been issued. The Tribunal noted that while the applicant had lodged a grade appeal on 9 January 2019, email correspondence confirmed that the finalisation of this appeal occurred on or after 1 February 2019. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Master's degree was completed after the visa application was lodged, meaning the applicant did not meet the Australian study requirement at the relevant time.

As the applicant failed to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.