Alsheri (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2321

Alsheri (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2321 (29 September 2025)
DECISION AND
Reasons for Decision
Applicant:Mr Abdulrahman Alsheri
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2515004

Tribunal:General Member M Sheargold
Place:Melbourne
Date: 29 September 2025
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a Skilled Independent (Permanent) visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the direction that the applicant meets the following criterion for a Subclass 189 visa:
·cl 189.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 29 September 2025 at 12:24pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visa – Subclass 189 – Federal Circuit and Family Court remittal – points test criterion – employed overseas in nominated skilled occupation – confusion regarding total hours worked – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 93, 94, 96, 350
Migration Amendment (New Skilled Regional Visas) Regulations 2019 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 1.15EA, 1.15F, 1.15I, 2.26AC; Schedule 2, cl 189.224; Schedule 6, Part 6D
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 10 January 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) Subclass 189 (Skilled - Independent) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). This is a points based visa designed for skilled applicants who have submitted an expression of interest and received an invitation to apply for the visa.
The applicant was invited to apply for the visa on 18 April 2018 and applied for the visa on 3 June 2018. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 189 - Skilled - Independent visa are set out in Part 189 - Skilled - Independent of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not satisfy the ‘points test’ criterion in cl 189.224.
This application was heard by the Tribunal (differently constituted) in October 2020 and the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision. The applicant appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), and on 25 February 2025, McCabe J issued a writ of certiorari quashing the Tribunal’s 28 October 2020 decision along with a writ of mandamus requiring the Tribunal to determine the applicant’s application for review according to law.
In short, McCabe J found that the Tribunal had asked itself the wrong question when considering whether the applicant’s work experience with the Saudi government was “overseas work experience” for the purposes of Part 6D.3 of Schedule 6 to the Regulations. Whether the applicant’s overseas work experience can be afforded recognition in the points test for this visa remains the key issue for consideration by the Tribunal at this fresh review.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant declined the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages, stating that at his first Tribunal hearing in 2020, he had found the interpreter to limit his ability to make his arguments clearly.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review, but the representative did not attend the Tribunal hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review is set aside and the matter be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant satisfies the points test criterion which requires that the applicant’s score, when assessed in relation to the visa under Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act:
·is not less than the score stated in the invitation to apply for the visa and
·is not less than the ‘qualifying score’.
Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act provides for a points system under which an applicant is given an assessed score based on a prescribed number of points for particular attributes. The qualifications and points applicable to this case are prescribed in Schedule 6D to the Regulations (reg 2.26AC). An applicant achieves the qualifying score if their assessed score is more than or equal to the applicable pass mark (s 94 of the Act), which is set by the Minister from time to time under s 96(2). The Tribunal must consider the applicant against the qualifications and points prescribed in Schedule 6D, and the pass mark as in force at the time of the delegate’s assessment and as in force at the time of this assessment, and apply whichever is more favourable to the applicant (ss 93 and 350 of the Act).
Some elements of the points test relate to the nominated skilled occupation. An occupation is a ‘skilled occupation’ if: it is specified by the relevant instrument as a skilled occupation; and, if a number of points are specified in the instrument as being available - for which the number of points are available; and that is applicable to the person in accordance with the specification of the occupation (reg 1.15I). The relevant instrument for this purpose is Legislative Instrument IMMI 18/051. In the present case, the applicant nominated the occupation of Medical Physicist, ANZSCO 234914.
Does the applicant have the qualifying score applying the law in force at the time of the delegate’s assessment?
Part 6D.1 – Age qualifications
Points are available under this Part if the applicant was aged between 18 and 44 years at the time of invitation to apply for the visa.
At the time of invitation, the applicant was aged 34 years. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to 25 points under this part.
Part 6D.2 – English language qualifications
Points are available under this Part on the basis of the applicant’s level of English language proficiency at the time of invitation to apply for the visa. The applicant provided evidence that he undertook a PTE Academic English language test in Jordan on 19 July 2016, and his language ability in that test was assessed as meeting the definition of ‘superior English’ in reg 1.15EA.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to 20 points under this part.
Part 6D.3 – Overseas employment experience qualifications
Points may be available under this Part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant had been employed outside Australia in the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation or a closely related skilled occupation for a period totalling at least 36, 60, or 96 months in the 10 years immediately before that time.
Herein lies the contentious issue at this second review. The Tribunal has carefully considered the applicant’s evidence regarding his overseas employment experience along with the definition of “employed” provided for the purposes of Schedule 6D that is set out in reg 2.26AC(6).
Item 6D31 in Part 6D.3 allocates 5 points to an applicant if, at the time of the invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant had been employed outside Australia in his nominated skilled occupation or a closely related skilled occupation for a period totalling at least 36 months in the 10 years immediately before that time.
Item 6D32 increases the points allocation to 10 points if the applicant can demonstrate such employment for 60 months in the 10 years immediately before the invitation, and item 6D33 allocates 15 points if the applicant can demonstrate such employment for 96 months in that same 10 year period.
Regulation 2.26AC(6) defines “employed” for the purposes of Schedule 6D and reg 2.26AC to mean “engaged in an occupation for remuneration for at least 20 hours a week”. The Tribunal is conscious that such a definition is broad and does not limit the Tribunal’s consideration to findings that work performed while the applicant was on shore in Australia must have been performed with an Australian employer. The regulation merely requires the applicant to demonstrate that he worked for, and was paid by, any organisation for at least 20 hours per week over the relevant time period for which he seeks to claim points under this Part.
The applicant completed his undergraduate study in mid-2010 in Saudi Arabia. His final 6 months of study required a full time placement in a hospital working in his specialisation, Medical Physicist, which is his nominated occupation for the purposes of this visa. His academic transcript for his degree notes that he performed exceptionally well in this placement subject. According to the applicant’s evidence at the hearing, this placement saw the applicant working at least 6 days per week for 6 months. He was required to relocate from his home in Jeddah and was compensated with a small wage to cover his living expenses. In the Tribunal’s view, this work experience meant the applicant was “employed” as envisaged by reg 2.26AC(6) for that 6 month period from January 2010 to July 2010.
From there, the applicant describes being “very lucky” to secure a full time role as a Medical Physicist at the King Fahad Hospital in Al-Baha, Saudi Arabia, from 26 July 2010. The applicant stated that it was unusual to obtain full time work straight out of a university degree, with wait times of 6-12 months not being unusual. The applicant described in detail his recollection of a discussion with his father regarding either taking this role, or waiting for another role that may allow him to remain living in Jeddah with his family.
Ultimately, a degree of confusion ensued during both the delegate’s assessment and the Tribunal’s original assessment of this case regarding the applicant’s employment in that role. This is, in part at least, due to the fact that the applicant has provided multiple employment reference letters for his work in this role. Some of those letters were produced in English, and others in Arabic with verified translations provided.
At the Departmental stage, the applicant provided a Certification dated 24 May 2016 from Dr S K Bakde, Acting Chief of Radiology at the Ministry of Health – General Directorate of Health Affairs Al – Baha Subjective Operating Program King Fahad Hospital at Al – Baha. This Certification was relied upon by the Australasian College of Physical Scientists & Engineers in Medicine to provide the applicant with a positive skills assessment.
The Certification clearly sets out the duties of the applicant working as a Medical Physicist at the King Fahad Hospital, and states that the applicant has worked “from 26 July 2010 till now (Equivalent 208 hours) as a Medical Physicist”. Confusion arose here because, as the applicant has highlighted at this second review, the phrase “equivalent 208 hours” is used in this context to mean that he worked at least 208 hours every calendar month. However, the delegate appears to have determined that the applicant was employed for a total of 208 hours.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s explanation of the typical employment regime in Saudi Arabia, where workers are not clocked by the hour, but rather expected to perform their work over a number of hours per week that may be considered excessive as a baseline number of hours in Australia. The applicant explained that as a Medical Physicist, he and his team were often reactive to the actions and requests of doctors, and thus needed to be available to work from at least 6:30am till 4:00pm 5 days per week. He stated that extra hours were often required on evenings and weekends where emergencies came up.
At the Tribunal’s first review in October 2020, the applicant also provided a translated copy of an Administrative Definition Certificate from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Health General Directorate for Personnel Employee Relations dated 13 February 2016. The Tribunal is satisfied that the translation of the original document, also provided, was performed by a Dr Matouk J Al Thumali, a person licensed to translate documents from Arabic to English.
The Administrative Definition Certificate states that the applicant is employed in the position of “Medical Physics Specialist-Men not a doctor” from 25 July 2010, and states that his is “a Ministry of Health employee, and he is still on duty up to date.” The letter also states that it was issued to the applicant on his request “to be submitted to WHOM IT MAY CONCERN” (emphasis in original).
The applicant also provided the Tribunal with a duly translated copy of a Salary Certificate Letter from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Health Directorate General of Human Resources Payroll and Benefits Department dated 16 October 2020. The letter, translated by a NAATI-accredited translator, states that the applicant was hired by the Ministry of Health on 21 July 2016, and stated that he is still on duty. It sets out his basic salary and allowances, sowing that his net salary is 10,486 Riyals (at present, the equivalent of AUD4,265.52).
At the hearing, the applicant explained that when he first came to Australia, he set about mastering English before attempting any formalised tertiary study. The applicant states that his English language classes only consumed around 5-6 hours per week, leaving him plenty of time to continue his work for King Fahad Hospital. The applicant’s evidence is that, as the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated, many routine roles can be performed fully remotely, and that his role as a Medical Physicist was one such role.
The applicant described his day to day work as being based in reporting, analysis, quality control and quality assurance. He told the Tribunal that he did not see patients physically, although he would prepare written advice either for doctors to provide to patients, or directly to patients, regarding certain treatment options for certain diseases. The applicant stated that King Fahad Hospital had been built by Americans in 1980, and that the hospital aimed to keep its operating standards in line with American hospital operating standards, which were significantly higher than those generally accepted in Saudi Arabia. He stated that this meant he had a significant function to perform in quality control and quality assurance in addition to his regular analysis of patient outcomes.
At the hearing, the applicant stated that the hospital had sought him to undertake additional qualifications overseas. As the applicant’s sister was already living and working in Australia, he decided to see a pathway to complete a doctoral degree in New South Wales, allowing him to live with his sister for general support and family connection. The applicant stated that he was granted a “scholarship” by the Ministry of Health to come to Australia to attain that degree. However, the “scholarship” was really nothing more than his obligation to complete his ongoing duties as a Medical Physicist for King Fahad Hospital. He stated that by continuing to complete his work, he would continue to receive his regular salary, and that this would form a “scholarship” to allow him to fund his studies in Australia.
A letter dated 14 February 2020, signed by Saud Bader Almutairi, Director General of Training and Academic Aff., Ministry of Health, Saudi Arabia, was provided to the Tribunal in October 2020. It purports to be a “Scholarship Financial Guarantee” and appears to be a document more relevant to the assessment of financial capacity for a student visa than it truly is in the determination of whether the applicant remained employed by, and working regularly for, the King Fahad Hospital while the applicant was studying in Australia until the time of his invitation to apply for this visa. However, the letter does confirm that the applicant’s job title is “Medical Physics Specialist (M) (Non Physician)” and that his current specialty is “Science (medical physics)”. The Tribunal accepts that this letter verifies that the applicant remained employed by the Ministry of Health at King Fahad Hospital beyond the previous latest-dated reference letter of 24 May 2016.
At the hearing, the Tribunal enquired as to why the applicant elected to have his salary deposited into his sister’s Australian bank account when he relocated to Australia to study rather than to his own Australian bank account directly. The applicant stated that at the time, he had not been contemplating that one day he may need evidence to prove he was still being paid his regular salary, but rather, he elected to have money paid to his sister directly because that allowed her to manage all of the household costs that arose as a result of his living with her.
The Tribunal has reviewed the Commonwealth Bank accounts showing frequent transfers from her account to the applicant’s account, with the description “Salary” always being included. The Tribunal notes that these transactions all occurred well before any questions were asked by the Department or the Tribunal regarding the applicant’s continued employment with the King Fahad Hospital once he had arrived in Australia.
The Tribunal also notes that the applicant stated that at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, his sister decided to return home to Saudi Arabia as part of an effort by the Saudi government to bring its citizens home. The applicant stated that he declined to leave Australia, hoping to continue his studies, but that this decision to remain in Australia did result in the termination of his employment with the King Fahad Hospital and therefore, his capacity to continue to pay for his course. Since the pandemic, he has been employed by a private company to work as a security guard at the Long Bay Correctional Centre.
At the hearing, the applicant stated that he was not able to be formally employed by the prison via Corrections NSW as he is not an Australian citizen. He has stated that he enjoys his work, and knows he makes a difference to people’s lives doing this role, but is frustrated that he cannot take up a higher paying and more satisfying position with Corrections while this application remains outstanding. The applicant explained that his hope is to attain Australian citizenship as quickly as possible after being granted a permanent residency visa so that he can be employed as a Medical Physicist with Corrections NSW, as he is aware that this is a role required across every shift at every prison in New South Wales.
Having carefully considered the applicant’s evidence, the independent references provided from his employer, and the evidence of financial transactions between his sister’s Australian bank account and his own showing his salary payments moving between her Australian account and his during the time the applicant was living in Australia but still working for the King Fahad Hospital, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was employed for at least 208 hours per month from at least 26 July 2010 to 24 May 2016 as indicated in the Certification.
The Tribunal is also prepared to find that the applicant continued in that role until at least 14 February 2020 when the Scholarship Guarantee letter was provided. As set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the definition of “employed” in reg 2.26AC(6) that applies for the purposes of Schedule 6D to the Regulations is sufficiently broad to enable the Tribunal to consider the applicant as “employed” by the King Fahad Hospital, part of the Ministry of Health in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from 26 July 2010 to the day before the invitation date, This means that he had completed 92 months of overseas employment experience in the 10 years immediately before being invited to apply for the visa.
Considering the totality of the evidence before it at review, the Tribunal notes it is open to it to make findings that the applicant meets each of these stipulations. The Tribunal can take a liberal approach to the definition of “employed” in reg 2.26AC(6) and credit the applicant’s 6 month work placement at the military hospital, where he worked well in excess of 20 hours per week and for which he received remuneration, to bring his total employment time as a Medical Physicist in Saudi Arabia to being 98 months in the previous 10 years to find that he is entitled to 15 points.

However, given the applicant’s inability to elicit any independently verifiable evidence regarding his remuneration for the work placement, the Tribunal declines to credit this portion of his work experience, and limits the applicant to meeting the requirement of completing at least 60 months and less than 96 months of overseas employment experience in the relevant 10 year period.
Therefore, subject to consideration of Part 6D.5, the applicant is entitled to 10 points under this part.
Part 6D.4 – Australian employment qualifications
Points may be available under this Part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant had been employed in Australia in the nominated occupation or a closely related skilled occupation for a period totalling at least 12, 36, 60 or 96 months in the 10 years immediately before that time.
The applicant made no claims and provided no evidence that, at the time of invitation, he had been employed in Australia in the nominated occupation or a closely related skilled occupation. As noted above, this is owing to the fact that the applicant was continuously employed in his role as a Medical Physicist at the King Fahad hospital in Al-Baha from 26 July 2010 until the time he was invited to apply for the visa.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.5 - Aggregating points for employment experience qualifications
Under this part, if an applicant has qualifications mentioned in both Parts 6D.3 and 6D.4 and the combined number of points that would be awarded under those Parts is more than 20 points, 20 points must be given under this Part for the qualifications and no points are to be given under Part 6D.3 or 6D.4.
The combined number of points that would be awarded under Parts 6D.3 and 6D.4 is 15 points. As this is not more than 20 points, the applicant is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.6 – Australian professional year qualifications
Five points are available under this part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant had completed a professional year (that is, a course specified in an instrument) in Australia in the nominated occupation or a closely related skilled occupation for a period totalling at least 12 months in the immediately preceding 48 months.
The applicant made no claims and provided no evidence of completing a professional year in Australia. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.7 – Educational qualifications
An applicant may be entitled to points under this Part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, he or she had met the requirements for the award of a specified Australian qualification or overseas qualification of a recognised standard. In determining whether an overseas qualification is of a ‘recognised standard’ (items 6D71(b), 6D72(b)), regard must be had to the matters set out in reg 2.26AC(5) which include recognition of the qualification by the relevant assessing authority, recognition of the qualification by a specified body, duration of the study and any other relevant matter.
The applicant has provided evidence that he holds a Bachelor of Science – Physics from the Umm Al-Qura University in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that he completed in June 2010. Having considered the academic transcripts for the degree provided, as well as the positive skills assessment for the applicant from the Australasian College of Physical Scientists & Engineers in Medicine dated 9 April 2018, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has completed a Bachelor qualification awarded by a non-Australian institution that is of a recognised standard.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to 15 points under this part.
Part 6D.7A – Specialist educational qualifications
Points may be awarded under this part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant met the requirements for the award of a specialist educational qualification, as defined in reg 2.26AC(5A). The applicant must satisfy the Minister that they have met the requirements for the award of a masters degree by research, or a doctoral degree, which included at least 2 academic years of study at an Australian educational institution in a field of education specified in the relevant instrument.
The applicant made no claims and provided no evidence that he meets the specialist educational qualification requirements. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.8 – Australian study qualifications
Five points may be awarded under this part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant met the Australian study requirement, as defined in reg 1.15F of the Regulations. To meet the Australian study requirement, the applicant must satisfy the Minister that they have completed 1 or more degrees, diplomas or trade qualifications for award by an Australian educational institution as a result of a registered course or courses, for which all instruction was in English. The applicant must have undertaken the courses in Australia while holding a visa authorising study, and completed them in a total of at least 16 calendar months as a result of a total of at least 2 academic years study.
The applicant made no claims and provided no evidence that he met the Australian study requirement before the time of the invitation to apply for the visa.
As the Australian study requirement had not been met at the time of invitation, the applicant is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.9 – Credentialled community language qualifications
Five points may be awarded under this part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant had a qualification in a particular language awarded or accredited by a specified body, and at a specified standard for the language.
The applicant made no claims and provided no evidence that he was the holder of a qualification awarded or accredited by a body specified by the Minister at the specified standard at the time he was invited to apply for the visa. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.10 – Study in regional Australia or a low-population growth metropolitan area qualification
Five points may be awarded under this part if, at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the applicant met the Australian study requirement (as defined in reg 1.15F), the location of the campus(es) at which the study was undertaken and the location in which the applicant lived while undertaking the course of study were in a specified area of Australia/ Distance education does not qualify as study for these purposes.
The applicant made no claims and provided no evidence that he met the study in regional Australia or a low-population growth metropolitan area qualification. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.11 – Partner qualifications
Five points may be awarded under this Part if the applicant has a spouse or de facto partner who is also an applicant for the same visa subclass and is not an Australian citizen or permanent resident and at the time the applicant was invited to apply for the visa, the spouse or de facto partner was under a specified age, nominated a specified skilled occupation, had been assessed as having suitable skills, and had competent English.
The applicant has made no claims and provided no evidence that he meets the partner skill qualification. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to no points under this part.
Part 6D.12 – State or Territory nomination qualifications
Points are available under this Part in certain circumstances for applicants who were invited to apply for a Subclass 190 (Skilled - Nominated) visa. The applicant in this case has not been invited to apply for such a visa and is therefore not entitled to any points under this part.
Part 6D.13 – Designated area sponsorship qualifications
Points are available under this Part in certain circumstances for applicants who were invited to apply for a Subclass 489 (Skilled - Regional) (Provisional) visa or a Subclass 491 (Skilled Work Regional (Provisional)) visa. The applicant in this case has not been invited to apply for such a visa and is therefore not entitled to any points under this part.
Conclusion on points
Based on the above assessment, having regard to the legislation in effect at the time of the delegate’s assessment, the number of points to be awarded to the applicant under Schedule 6D is:
6D.1 - Age  25 points
6D.2 - English language  20 points
6D.3 - Overseas employment experience  10 points
6D.4 - Australian employment experience  0 points
6D.5 - Aggregated employment  0 points
6D.6 - Australian professional year  0 points
6D.7 - Educational  15 points
6D.7A – Specialist educational  0 points
6D.8 - Australian study  0points
6D.9 - Credentialled community language  0 points
6D.10 - Study in regional Australia or a low-population growth metropolitan area qualification      0 points
6D.11 - Partner qualifications  0 points
6D.12 - State or Territory nomination  0 points
6D.13 Designated area sponsorship qualifications               0 points
Total points  70 points
The applicant’s assessed score under the points system is therefore 70 points.
At the time of the delegate’s assessment the pass mark was 60 points: Legislative Instrument IMMI 12/017. The applicant has therefore achieved the qualifying score to pass the points test.
Has the applicant achieved the qualifying score applying the law in force at time of Tribunal’s assessment?
At the time of the Tribunal’s assessment, LIN 19/210 is in effect. That instrument has increased the qualifying score to 65 points. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s assessed score is still above this increased qualifying score.
Importantly, along with the increase in qualifying score, the number of points awarded for certain qualifications were increased for assessments undertaken on or after 16 November 2019 by amendments made to the regulations by the Migration Amendment (New Skilled Regional Visas) Regulations 2019 (Cth). As the delegate’s decision was made before 16 November 2019, it is open to the Tribunal to consider the award of the additional points set out in those new Regulations at this stage. The amendments provided for the award of additional points as follows:
·10 points for specialist educational qualifications (Part 6D.7A)
·10 points for a skilled spouse or de facto partner (Part 6D.11)
·10 points for applicants without a spouse or de facto partner (Part 6D.11)
·5 points for a spouse or de facto partner with ‘competent English’ (Part 6D.11)
·15 points for nomination by a State or Territory government agency or sponsorship by a family member residing in regional Australia, to live and work in regional Australia (Part 6D.13).
In this case, at the time of the Tribunal’s fresh assessment in September 2025, the Tribunal has again enquired as to the applicant’s relationship status. He has confirmed that, much to his father’s dismay, he still does not have a spouse or a de facto partner. This means that, at the time of the Tribunal’s assessment, he is entitled to be awarded 10 points under Part 6D.11 of Schedule 6D to the Regulations.
This means that, at the time of the Tribunal’s assessment, the qualifying score is 65 points, and the applicant’s total score on the points test is 80 points.
Has the applicant achieved the score stated in the invitation to apply for the visa?
It is also a requirement that the applicant’s score is not less than the score stated in the invitation to apply for the visa. The written invitation given to the applicant stated a score of 75 points. On the basis of the points assessment above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has achieved the score stated in the invitation to apply for the visa.
For the above reasons, the applicant is entitled to a maximum of 80 points under the points test. As the applicant’s score is not less than the score stated in the invitation to apply for the visa, and not less than the qualifying score, the applicant satisfies cl 189.224, which is a prescribed criterion for the grant of the visa. The appropriate course is to set aside the decision under review and remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a Skilled Independent (Permanent) visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criterion for a Subclass 189 visa:
·cl 189.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Date of hearing: 18 September 2025
Representative: David Godwin