Fuensalida (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an appeal by Mr. Fuensalida concerning the refusal of his Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, specifically the Post-Study Work stream of the Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa. The applicant sought to have the decision under review affirmed, arguing that he had made an error in selecting the Post-Study Work stream instead of the Graduate Work stream due to financial pressures and concerns arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 485 visa, particularly in relation to the Australian study requirement and the specified qualification. A key issue was whether the applicant's courses were completed within the relevant timeframe stipulated by the regulations for either the Post-Study Work stream or the Graduate Work stream. The Tribunal also considered the validity of the application, specifically whether it substantially complied with the requirements for the Graduate Work stream, which necessitates the nomination of a skilled occupation.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's application was not valid for the Graduate Work stream because he failed to nominate a skilled occupation as required by Item 1229(3)(k) of Schedule 1 of the Regulations. This failure meant the application did not meet the prescribed criteria for validity at the time it was lodged. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of clause 485.231, 485.232, or 485.233, which relate to the Australian study requirement and the timeframe for completing qualifications.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa. The decision under review, which refused the visa, was therefore affirmed.