Aung (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr. Aung, who sought an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically under the subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) direct entry stream. The central dispute concerned whether Mr. Aung met the employment and skills assessment requirements for this visa subclass. His spouse was a secondary applicant, and her application's outcome was contingent on his.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if Mr. Aung satisfied clause 186.234 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. This clause requires applicants in the direct entry stream to either be an exempt person or have their skills assessed as suitable by a specified authority and meet certain employment criteria. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether Mr. Aung had been employed in his nominated occupation for three years full-time, at the required skill level, and possessed a valid skills assessment from an appropriate body, given that he did not claim to be an exempt person.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Aung did not claim to be an exempt person and, therefore, relied on the alternative pathway under clause 186.234. It was satisfied that Mr. Aung had obtained a positive skills assessment for the occupation of Accountant (General) from Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, which was a specified assessing authority. This assessment was issued for general migration purposes, was valid for three years, and was not more than three years old at the time of his visa application. The Tribunal also concluded that Mr. Aung had been employed full-time as an Accountant (General) for three years at the required skill level. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for reconsideration, directing that Mr. Aung met the criteria under clause 186.234.