Jin (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Ms Jin, who sought to satisfy the primary criteria for a Subclass 485 visa in the Graduate Work stream. The central dispute concerned whether Ms Jin's educational qualifications were "closely related" to her nominated skilled occupation of Accountant (General) (ANZSCO 221111), as required by clause 485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if each degree, diploma, or trade qualification relied upon by Ms Jin to meet the Australian study requirement was indeed closely related to the nominated occupation. This involved interpreting the meaning of "closely related" in the context of migration law, considering established case law that indicates the connection must be more than merely complementary but does not necessitate an exact correspondence. The Tribunal also had to assess whether the nominated occupation should be understood by reference to the entirety of its ANZSCO description, including higher groupings, and whether the assessment should focus objectively on the qualifications and the occupation rather than the applicant's subjective views.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied principles derived from various court decisions. It noted that the term "closely related" has been interpreted by the courts to require a substantial connection, not just a complementary one. The Tribunal emphasised that the assessment must focus on the nominated occupation as defined by ANZSCO, giving substantial weight to the official descriptions. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the relationship between the qualifications and the occupation should be objectively assessed, and where multiple qualifications are used, each must be closely related to the nominated occupation, not just to each other. The Tribunal concluded that the entire scope of the Australian studies must be compared with the entire scope of the nominated skilled occupation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Ms Jin the Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, finding that she did not meet the requirements of clause 485.222.