LI (Migration) [2018] AATA 4297 (7 September 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Mr Junye LI
CASE NUMBER: 1717283
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2017/2408410
MEMBER:Katie Malyon
DATE:7 September 2018
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criterion for a Subclass 485 visa:
·cl.485.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and,
·cl.485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Statement made on 07 September 2018 at 6:08 pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – graduate work stream – ‘Australian study requirement’ – completed 3 degrees in Australia – Accountant –subject exemptions – Masters of Professional Accounting – CPA skills assessment qualifications closely related to occupation – decision under review remitted for reconsiderationLEGISLATION
Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth) s 9
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15F Schedule 2 cls 485.221, 485.222CASES
Chawdhury v MIAC [2010] FMCA 275
Constantino v MIBP [2013] FCA 1301
Kabir v MIAC [2010] FMCA 577
MIBP v Dhillon (2014) 227 FCR 525
Shafiuzzaman v MIAC [2011] FMCA 874
Talha v MIBP[2015] FCAFC 115
Uddin v MIAC [2010] FCA 1281STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 7 August 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant, Mr Junye Li, a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’).
Mr Li applied for the visa on 6 July 2017. Visa Class VC contains Subclass 485. For visa applications made before 1 July 2013, there is also a Subclass 487: however, that Subclass is not relevant to the present matter. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa are set out in Part 485 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (‘the Regulations’).
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis Mr Li did not meet cl.485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because, despite completing 3 degrees in Australia, he did not meet the Australian study requirement. This arose because Mr Li’s most recent qualification, a Master of Professional Accounting completed at Top Education Institute (‘Top’), is registered for a period of 78 weeks only and the delegate was not satisfied that Mr Li’s other 2 qualifications are closely related to his nominated occupation of Accountant (General) ANZSCO 221111.
The Tribunal did not hold a hearing in this matter because it determined it was able to make a favourable decision on the papers consistent with s.360(2)(a) of the Act. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Mr Li is seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for a Subclass 485 visa in the Graduate Work stream which include cl.485.221…
Continue reading LI (Migration)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- LI (Migration) [2018] AATA 4297
- Case
- [2018] AATA 4297
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Li had satisfied the ‘Australian study requirement’ as defined by regulation 1.15F(1), which necessitates the completion of registered courses in Australia over a minimum of 16 calendar months and at least two academic years of study, with all instruction in English, undertaken while holding a study-authorised visa. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine if each degree, diploma, or trade qualification used to satisfy this requirement was ‘closely related’ to Mr Li’s nominated skilled occupation, as stipulated by clause 485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The Tribunal found that Mr Li had provided sufficient documentation, including academic records for a Bachelor of Business and Commerce, a Master of Business, and a Master of Professional Accounting, all completed in Australia. It also considered a skills assessment from CPA Australia for the occupation of Accountant (General). Based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Li met both the ‘Australian study requirement’ and the ‘closely related’ qualification criterion.
Consequently, the Tribunal remitted Mr Li's visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that Mr Li had satisfied the criteria under clauses 485.221 and 485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.