Carraro (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, specifically the Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa, post-study work stream. The applicant sought to rely on this stream because it did not require a skills assessment, a factor influenced by the timing of her application during the COVID-19 pandemic. A secondary applicant was included as a member of the family unit. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether clause 485.231 of the Migration Regulations 1994 applied to the applicant, and if so, whether she met the requirements of that clause. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant held a qualification of a kind specified by the Minister, awarded by a specified educational institution, and if her study satisfied the Australian study requirement within the relevant timeframe. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the criteria for alternative clauses (485.232 to 485.235) which would have rendered clause 485.231 inapplicable.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 485.231 did apply because the applicant did not meet the requirements of clauses 485.232, 485.233, 485.234, or 485.235, as she had not previously held a visa in the post-study work or replacement streams. Crucially, the applicant's qualification, a Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care, was not specified in the relevant ministerial instrument (IMMI 13/013). Further clarification from the applicant's educational institution confirmed that her diploma was at a lower Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level than a Graduate Diploma, which was a specified qualification type.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa to the primary applicant. As the secondary applicant was a member of the family unit and the primary applicant did not meet the visa criteria, the decision was also affirmed in respect of the secondary applicant.