Bjork (Migration) - [2020] AATA 2850

Bjork (Migration) [2020] AATA 2850 (29 May 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Miss Emma Charlotte Bjork
CASE NUMBER:  1812812
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/1137698
MEMBER:Simone Burford
DATE:29 May 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.

Statement made on 29 May 2020 at 2:53pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa– Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate)) visa – English language proficiency requirement not met – English test was undertaken after visa application was lodged – no discretion to waive English requirement –decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 485.212

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 9 March 2018. Visa Class VC contains Subclass 485. (For visa applications made before 1 July 2013, there is also a Subclass 487, however that subclass is not relevant to the present matter.) The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa are set out in Part 485 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria.
The delegate refused the visa on 17 April 2018 because the applicant did not have the required English language proficiency. The applicant provided a copy of the Delegate’s decision record to the Tribunal with her application for review.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 May 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s partner, Mr Jason Scott Dawson. The Tribunal notes the applicant indicated Mr Dawson was present with her throughout the hearing.
The applicant was not represented in relation to her application for review.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The applicant did not raise any concerns with the Tribunal regarding the telephone hearing and indicated she was able to hear the Tribunal clearly. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bjork (Migration) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] AATA 2850
Decision Date: 29 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Ms. Bjork, an applicant for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate). The dispute centred on whether Ms. Bjork met the English language proficiency requirement for the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Ms. Bjork satisfied clause 485.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that an applicant must provide evidence of either holding a specified passport or having undertaken an approved English language test with a specified score within a specified period, in accordance with relevant instruments. The Tribunal also considered whether there was any discretion to waive this requirement.

The Tribunal found that Ms. Bjork did not meet the passport requirement under clause 485.212(b), as she did not hold a passport from a country specified in the relevant instrument, IMMI 15/062. Consequently, she was required to satisfy clause 485.212(a). While Ms. Bjork provided evidence of an IELTS test taken on 12 May 2018, this test was undertaken after her visa application was lodged on 9 March 2018. The regulations, as specified in IMMI 15/062, require the English language test to be undertaken within 36 months prior to lodging the application. The Tribunal noted that there was no discretion to waive this requirement, and Ms. Bjork's submission that she misunderstood the Department's website information, and the potential hardship to her family, did not alter the regulatory requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Ms. Bjork the Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, subclass 485, as she failed to meet the mandatory English language proficiency requirement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE The issue in the present case is whether the applicant satisfies cl.485.212 which requires that the application was accompanied by evidence that: ·the applicant has undertaken a language test specified in an instrument; and has achieved, within the period specified in the instrument, the score specified, in accordance with any specified requirements (cl.485.212(a)); or·the applicant holds a passport of a type specified by the Minister in an instrument (cl.485.212(b)). The relevant instrument specifying language tests, scores, relevant periods and passports is IMMI 15/062. The Delegate found that the applicant had not provided any evidence that she held a passport of a type specified by the Minister and therefore did not satisfy 485.212(b). The applicant provided a copy of her Swedish passport issued on 23 December 2019 to the Tribunal and confirmed at the hearing that she did not hold a passport from any of the countries specified in the instrument. In the present case, there is no evidence that the applicant has held a passport of a type specified, and cl.485.212(b) is not met. As such the applicant must meet cl.485.212(a). The Delegate’s decision records that when making the visa application the applicant declared in her application form that she had not undertaken an English language test in the 36 months prior to making the application. The applicant did not provide evidence of an English language test when she lodged their application. The applicant has not provided the Tribunal with documentary evidence she undertook an English language test in the 36 months prior to lodging her application on watermark9 March 2018. The applicant has provided the Tribunal with documentary evidence she undertook an International English Language Test System (IELTS) English language test on 12 May 2018. This indicates the applicant achieved an overall score of 8.0. At the hearing the applicant set out the circumstances which led to her not meeting the English language requirement. She indicated that she had misunderstood the information on the Department’s website concerning the visa requirements. She thought that she could provide evidence of the two degrees she had undertaken in Australia, a Bachelor of Arts (Psychology and Counselling) from Edith Cowan University and a Master of Social Work from the University of Western Australia as evidence of here English Language proficiency. This evidence was supported by Mr Dawson who testified that the information on the Department’s website was misleading. He observed that it appeared the information had since been amended. The applicant testified she had given birth to an Australian citizen child in February 2019. Both she and Mr Dawson testified that the refusal of the visa could cause hardship to the family as they may be forced to separate if the applicant and her child returned to Sweden. Mr Dawson observed that due to Covid-19 restrictions he would be unable to travel with them to Sweden.

Decision

Reasons for decision

On the basis of the above, the applicant does not meet the requirements of cl.485.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and therefore does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa. As this is the only relevant subclass in this case, the decision under review will be affirmed.DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.Simone BurfordMember

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.