Bowles (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against a decision regarding her application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The nominated occupation was Recruitment Consultant. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant possessed the necessary skills, qualifications, and employment background to perform the tasks of the nominated occupation, as required by clause 457.223(4)(da) of the Regulations. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applicant's work history, including her experience as a sales account manager in the investment and finance industry and her current and past roles as a recruitment consultant, totalling approximately eight years.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant met the requirements of clause 457.223(4)(da), which mandates that an applicant must have the skills, qualifications, and employment background considered necessary by the Minister to perform the tasks of the nominated occupation. This involved assessing the applicant's work history against the ANZSCO role description for a Recruitment Consultant, which specifies a skill level commensurate with a bachelor's degree or higher, with at least five years of relevant experience potentially substituting for formal qualifications. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant's prior experience as a sales account manager was relevant to the nominated occupation.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant did not possess formal qualifications for the role, the Regulations did not prescribe a rigid formula for assessing an applicant's history against the nominated occupation. It was established that ANZSCO provides a useful guide for this assessment. Applying the principles from *Sharma v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs* [2019] FCA 1708, the Tribunal considered the identification of tasks, the determination of necessary skills, and the assessment of whether the applicant possessed those skills. The Tribunal noted that the second and third elements involve evaluative assessments where reasonable minds may differ. Despite the applicant's submission of various documents and oral evidence, and the agent's indication that some requested documentation from the UK had not yet arrived, the Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient information before it to proceed. However, the Tribunal found that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

The Tribunal remitted the application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the criteria under clause 457.223(4)(da) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.