Hnit (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Hnit, an applicant for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485, in the Graduate Work stream. The dispute centred on whether Hnit met the primary criteria for this visa, specifically those relating to skills assessment for the nominated occupation of Medical Laboratory Scientist.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Hnit had provided sufficient evidence of a skills assessment by a relevant authority that deemed their skills suitable for the nominated occupation, and if such an assessment, if provided, had not expired. The Tribunal was required to determine if Hnit's qualifications and work experience met the requirements of clauses 485.223 and 485.224 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Australian Institute of Medical Scientists (AIMS) had assessed Hnit's skills as not suitable for the nominated occupations, this assessment was not determinative. The Tribunal noted that a skills assessment is not an opinion that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal must accept as correct. It further highlighted the limitations of the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) codes, citing various submissions and academic papers that described ANZSCO as inflexible, backwards-looking, and unable to accommodate emerging occupations or multiskilling. The Tribunal concluded that the intention of the Subclass 485 visa is to provide opportunities for learning and practical work experience, and that Hnit's extensive research in cancer, directly related to their undergraduate and postgraduate studies, demonstrated a clear alignment with the occupation of a medical scientist.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that it would be erroneous to deny Hnit a temporary skills visa to gain experience where their work performed was clearly research-based and utilised the learnings from their studies. The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration.