Lizarazo Ocampo (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Lizarazo Ocampo concerning an application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, specifically the Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa in the Graduate Work stream. The applicant sought to have a decision affirmed that denied him this visa. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's nominated occupation of Accountant (General) and whether he met the necessary pre-requisite study requirements for a positive skills assessment.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for the Subclass 485 visa, specifically cls 485.223 and 485.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which pertain to the applicant's skills in relation to their nominated occupation. Clause 485.224(1) requires a skills assessment by a relevant authority as suitable for the nominated occupation within the last three years, with the assessment not having expired if a validity period was specified. The Tribunal also had to consider an additional requirement if the skills assessment was based on an Australian qualification obtained while holding a student visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant was required to meet these criteria because his visa application was made on 12 March 2020. Despite providing submissions and evidence, including correspondence with the assessing authority, the Institute of Public Accountants, the applicant could not obtain a positive skills assessment. He explained that his Bachelor of Business studies completed in Australia were not considered sufficiently evidenced for the nominated occupation of Accountant. Although a second review by the Institute of Public Accountants found he met four out of five pre-requisite study requirements, the absence of the fifth prevented a positive outcome. The Tribunal noted the applicant's long history in Australia since 2011 and his initial purpose of advancing his English studies, which also precluded him from the Post-Study Work stream due to the timing of his first student visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa. As this was the only relevant subclass in this case, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.