Joshi (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa (subclass 482) by the first named applicant, with the second named applicant seeking to be included as a secondary applicant. The dispute arose because the primary applicant, nominated as a General Practitioner, failed to provide requested information regarding their registration with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). The decision under review was made by the Department and subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first named applicant met the criteria for a subclass 482 visa in the Medium-Term stream, specifically clause 482.215. This clause requires that if the nominated occupation is a medical practitioner, the applicant's qualifications must be recognised by the relevant Australian authority for registration as entitling them to practise. A further issue was whether the second named applicant met the secondary visa criteria as a family unit member, or the primary criteria in her own right.

The Tribunal reasoned that it was undisputed that the nominated occupation was General Practitioner and that AHPRA is the relevant authority for registration. Despite repeated requests from both the Department and the Tribunal, the first named applicant had not provided evidence of AHPRA registration. Consequently, the Tribunal was compelled to find that clause 482.215 was not met. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision regarding the second named applicant, finding she did not meet the secondary criteria as a family unit member and had not provided evidence to meet the primary criteria herself.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visas.