Mado (Migration)

[2023] AATA 3222

Mado (Migration) [2023] AATA 3222 (17 August 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Aloysius Ronaldo Mado

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Peter Douglas Watt (MARN: 0742076)

CASE NUMBER:  2113775

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/1039622

MEMBER:Mary Sheargold

DATE:17 August 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:

·cl 485.224(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 17 August 2023 at 5:17pm

CATCHWORDS  
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – Mechatronics Engineer – skills assessment – decision under review remitted 

LEGISLATION 
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360 
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 485.224 

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicant applied for the visa on 6 March 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 4 October 2021.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of a skills assessment for the nominated occupation was not provided as required to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).

3. On 17 August 2023, the Tribunal received a new skills assessment for the applicant, dated 21 June 2023, in the same terms as the original skills assessment provided with the application.  The Tribunal notes that the applicant did provide a Notification of Incorrect Answers to the Department in March 2020, some 18 months prior to the delegate’s decision, where the applicant clearly articulates his nominated skilled occupation is the occupation accorded to the occupation set out in his skills assessment.  There is no evidence in the delegate’s decision to suggest that the Notification of Incorrect Answers form had been considered by the delegate prior to a decision being made.

4. In any case, the skills assessment provided to the Tribunal today is valid, and it states that the applicant has the skills to perform his nominated skilled occupation at ANZSCO 233999, the occupation he listed when notifying the Department of the mistake in his application where he had indicated he was applying for his visa in the nominated occupation of Mechanical Engineer rather than Mechatronics Engineer.

5. In light of the new evidence received, the Tribunal is satisfied that the criterion is met and has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

6. In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s 360(2)(a) of the Act.

   DECISION

7. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:

   ·cl 485.224(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

   Mary Sheargold
   Member