Harpreet Kaur (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – Post-Study Work stream, before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought to be granted the visa as a member of the family unit of her husband, who had previously held a Subclass 485 visa. The delegate had not been satisfied that the applicant's husband held the requisite visa, and consequently, that the applicant met the requirements of clause 485.311 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 485.311 for the grant of the visa. This clause mandates that an applicant must be a member of the family unit of a person who holds a Subclass 485 visa granted on the basis of satisfying primary criteria, or who holds a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa by satisfying primary criteria. The definition of "member of the family unit" includes a spouse or de facto partner.

The Tribunal considered that the applicant's husband had been granted a Subclass 485 visa which had since ceased. The Tribunal had advised the applicant that current Department records indicated her husband was not the holder of a relevant visa, and that if this information were relied upon, she might not satisfy the requirements of clause 485.311. The applicant did not provide a response to this notification. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's husband was the holder of a relevant visa at the time of the decision, as required by clause 485.311. Consequently, the Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.