Lao (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had met the criteria relating to their nominated skilled occupation, specifically concerning the requirement for a skills assessment by a relevant assessing authority at the time of application.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied clauses 485.223 and 485.224 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. These clauses mandate that a visa application must be accompanied by evidence of an application for a skills assessment for the nominated skilled occupation by a relevant assessing authority. The core issue was to ascertain the applicant's intended nominated occupation, given an assertion by the applicant that a clerical error had led to the incorrect occupation being listed on the application.

The Tribunal reasoned that while generally the nominated occupation on the application form is determinative, caselaw, including *Pavuluri v MIBP*, suggests that in certain circumstances, the Tribunal may examine other evidence to clarify an applicant's intended nominated occupation. The applicant claimed to have intended to nominate "ICT Sales Representative" but inadvertently selected "ICT Business Analyst" due to a clerical error, as these occupations appeared consecutively in an online dropdown menu. The Tribunal considered that a finding of a clerical error, as opposed to a mistake in advice, could support a conclusion that the nominated occupation was other than as specified. Based on the applicant's explanation and the nature of the alleged error, the Tribunal found that the applicant met the requirements of clauses 485.223 and 485.224.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa for reconsideration by the Minister, with the direction that the applicant had met the specified criteria relating to their nominated skilled occupation.