Lee (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Lee against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirming the refusal of his application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, subclass 485. The primary issue was whether Mr Lee had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the visa criterion requiring a positive assessment of his skills by the relevant assessing authority, in this instance, Trades Recognition Australia (TRA). Mr Lee contended that the TRA assessment was not available at the time of his visa application, but that it was subsequently obtained and was positive.

The central legal question before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the AAT had erred in law by failing to consider the positive skills assessment from TRA, which was obtained after the initial visa application but before the AAT's decision. Specifically, the court had to determine if the AAT was obligated to consider this later-obtained evidence when assessing whether Mr Lee met the eligibility requirements for the visa.

The Court found that the AAT had indeed erred in law. It reasoned that the AAT's role was to determine the merits of the application at the time of its decision, and therefore, it should have considered the positive skills assessment from TRA. The Court applied the principle that an administrative tribunal should consider all relevant evidence available at the time of its own hearing and decision-making process, particularly when that evidence directly addresses a criterion that was initially unmet but subsequently satisfied.

Consequently, the Court set aside the AAT's decision and remitted the matter to the AAT for redetermination in accordance with the Court's reasons.