Gill (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa, Graduate Work stream. The applicant sought to satisfy the primary criteria for this visa, specifically clauses 485.221 and 485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the requirements of these clauses, which mandate satisfying the 'Australian study requirement' within the six months preceding the visa application and ensuring that any qualification used to meet this requirement is closely related to the applicant's nominated skilled occupation.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had satisfied the Australian study requirement and, crucially, whether her Advanced Diploma of Marketing was "closely related" to her nominated occupation of Chef. The regulations define a "skilled occupation" by reference to ministerial specification, and the applicant's nominated occupation of Chef was indeed specified in the relevant legislative instrument. The applicant had lodged her visa application on 14 December 2016, nominating Chef as her occupation, and had completed her Advanced Diploma of Marketing on 5 December 2016, within the six-month period prior to lodging her application.

The Tribunal reasoned that for a qualification to be considered "closely related" to a nominated occupation, there must be a demonstrable connection between the study undertaken and the duties of that occupation. In this instance, the Tribunal noted that the delegate had examined the ANZSCO description for Chef, which did not include any marketing-related activities. While acknowledging that a marketing qualification might be beneficial for future career planning, the Tribunal concluded that this potential benefit was insufficient to establish the required close relationship between the Advanced Diploma of Marketing and the nominated occupation of Chef. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied clause 485.222.

As the applicant failed to satisfy the criteria in clause 485.222, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa. This determination also meant that any secondary applicants associated with the primary application did not satisfy the relevant criteria.