Minkyu (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Minkyu against a decision to affirm the refusal to grant him a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, subclass 485, Graduate Work stream. The applicant nominated his occupation as ‘Medical Practitioners nec’. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant had met the requirement to provide evidence of having applied for a skills assessment with the relevant authority at the time of his visa application.

The Tribunal was required to determine two key issues: first, the nominated skilled occupation in the visa application, and second, whether the application was accompanied by evidence of having applied for a skills assessment for that occupation by the relevant assessing authority. The relevant instrument and regulations stipulated that the Medical Board of Australia was the assessing authority for medical practitioners.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had nominated ‘Medical Practitioners nec’ as his occupation. Crucially, in response to a direct question on the application form, the applicant stated he had not applied for a skills assessment, and no such evidence was provided. The applicant expressed confusion regarding the different visa streams, believing his Australian study was sufficient and unaware of the need for a separate skills assessment. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's first student visa was granted prior to 5 November 2011, which meant his application could only be assessed against the Graduate Work stream criteria, not the Post-Study Work stream. Despite acknowledging the applicant's long period of study in Australia and the potentially harsh outcome, the Tribunal concluded that clause 485.223 of the regulations, requiring evidence of a skills assessment application, had not been met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.