Chand (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr Chand, an applicant for a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa in the Graduate Work stream. The applicant sought to satisfy the primary criteria for this visa, which relate to the applicant's skills in their nominated occupation. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Chand met these specific visa requirements.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had applied for a skills assessment by a relevant assessing authority at the time of his visa application, as required by clause 485.223(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and whether his skills had subsequently been assessed as suitable for the nominated occupation, as stipulated by clause 485.224(1). The Tribunal also considered the definition of "skilled occupation" and "relevant assessing authority" under the Regulations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had nominated the occupation of Electrical Engineering Draftsperson and provided evidence of a skills assessment application with Engineers Australia, the relevant assessing authority, dated prior to his visa application. This satisfied the requirement under clause 485.223(1). However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant's own evidence indicated he had not been assessed as suitable for the nominated occupation, nor had he provided evidence of such an assessment. Consequently, the applicant failed to satisfy the criteria under clause 485.224(1).

As the applicant did not meet the essential criteria for the Subclass 485 visa, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.