Chowdhury (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) (Class PS) visa, subclass 491. The applicant nominated Accountant (General) as their skilled occupation. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements for a valid skills assessment at the time of their invitation to apply for the visa. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine the applicant's eligibility for the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was the interpretation and application of clause 491.214 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to ascertain whether the applicant possessed a skills assessment that was valid and not more than three years old at the time of their invitation to apply for the visa, as stipulated by subclause 491.214(1)(d). The Tribunal also considered whether a subsequent skills assessment, obtained after the invitation date, could satisfy this requirement, and whether the interpretation of "at the time of invitation" could extend to the period within which the invitation was valid.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's initial skills assessment from CPA Australia, dated 9 May 2018, was more than three years old by the invitation date of 26 May 2021, thus failing to meet the criterion in clause 491.214(1)(d). A subsequent skills assessment, dated 13 September 2021, was obtained after the invitation date and therefore could not satisfy the requirement. The Tribunal considered the case of *Thapa v MICMSMA* [2021] FCCA 686, which suggested that "at the time of invitation" could encompass the period of invitation validity. However, even applying this broader interpretation, the applicant's first assessment was too old, and the second assessment had not yet been issued within the invitation period of 26 May 2021 to 26 July 2021.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) (Class PS) visa. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had elected not to request Ministerial intervention but that this option remained open to them.