Mohammed Khaled Mirza (Migration)

[2018] AATA 5332

Mohammed Khaled Mirza (Migration) [2018] AATA 5332 (31 October 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Mohammed Khaled Mirza

CASE NUMBER:  1808659

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/2177338

MEMBER:Denise Connolly

DATE:31 October 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas.

Statement made on 31 October 2018 at 1:36pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – Direct Entry stream – Security Consultant – skills and qualifications – Advanced Diploma of Business – Certificate III in Security Operations – business acumen for dealing with contracts and clients – qualifications not sufficiently relevant – alternative to formal qualification – experience and skills more aligned with that of a security guard – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 187.234

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 Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 20 June 2017. At the time of application, Class RN contained one subclass: Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).

3. The criteria for a Subclass 187 visa are set out in Part 187 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by the applicant. Applicants seeking to satisfy the primary criteria must meet the 'Common criteria', as well as the criteria of one of two alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, or the Direct Entry stream.

4. In the present case, the applicant is seeking the visa in Direct Entry stream, to work in the nominated position of Security Consultant.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet cl.187.234 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. That provision relates to skills and qualifications.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 11 October 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the sponsor, Mr Pranav Dodeja of Travaza Pty Ltd and a colleague, Mr Andrew James.   

7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Skills and qualifications

9. For applicants in the Direct Entry stream, cl.187.234 requires that at the time of application:

   ·     the applicant is in a specified class of persons (exempt persons), or

   ·     if the applicant’s occupation has been specified by the Minister and the applicant did not obtain the necessary qualification in Australia – that the applicant’s skills have been assessed as suitable for the occupation by a specified assessing authority (the skills assessment must meet certain requirements, depending on the date of visa application), or

   ·     if neither of the above applies, the applicant had the qualifications listed in ANZSCO as being necessary to perform the tasks of the occupation.

10. For this criterion, the relevant classes of exempt persons have been specified in IMMI 15/083, and the occupations and relevant assessing authorities have been specified in IMMI 12/096. For the skills assessment, if the visa application was made on or after 28 October 2013, the assessment cannot be one for a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa. For visa applications made on or after 1 July 2014, the date of the assessment must not be more than three years before the date of visa application or, if the assessment specifies a period of validity less than 3 years after the date of assessment, that period must not have ended.

11. The relevant classes of exempt persons specified are as follows: persons who are nominated for a visa under the regulations for a position where there nominated earnings will be at least equivalent to the current Australian Taxation Office top individual income tax rate ($180,001 per annum); or certain persons who are currently in Australia as the holder of a Subclass 444 or 461 visa. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has been nominated for a position where the nominated earnings will be at least equivalent to the top ATO individual income tax rate. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the applicant has been the holder of a Subclass 444 or 461 visa. Therefore the applicant is not in the specified class of persons and cl.187.234(a) is not met.

12. The Tribunal has had regard to the relevant instrument specifying occupations for the purposes of cl.187.234(b)(i) and finds that it does not include the nominated occupation Security Consultant. It finds therefore that the requirements in cl.187.234(b) are not met.

13. Therefore the applicant must meet the requirements in cl.187.234(c), that is, that the applicant had the qualifications listed in ANZSCO as being necessary to perform the tasks of the occupation. The Tribunal has had regard to the qualifications listed in ANZSCO which relevantly states as follows:

    UNIT GROUP 4422 SECURITY OFFICERS AND GUARDS

    
    SECURITY OFFICERS AND GUARDS provide security and investigative services to organisations and individuals.

    Indicative Skill Level:
    Most occupations in this unit group have a level of skill commensurate with the qualifications and experience outlined below.

    In Australia:

    AQF Certificate I, or compulsory secondary education (ANZSCO Skill Level 5)

    
    For some occupations a short period of on-the-job training may be required in addition to or instead of the formal qualification. In some instances no formal qualification or on-the-job training may be required.

    Registration or licensing may be required.
    The occupation Security Consultant has a level of skill commensurate with the qualifications and experience outlined below.
    In Australia:

    AQF Certificate III including at least two years of on-the-job training, or AQF Certificate IV (ANZSCO Skill Level 3)

    
    At least three years of relevant experience may substitute for the formal qualifications listed above. In some instances relevant experience and/or on-the-job training may be required in addition to the formal qualification.
    Registration or licensing may be required.

    ….
    Tasks Include:

    opatrolling property and checking doors, windows and gates for unauthorised entry

    owatching for irregularities such as fire hazards, malfunctions of machines and equipment, lights left on, leaking water pipes and unlocked security doors

    oissuing security passes to authorised visitors and giving directions

    omonitoring alarms and contacting supervisors, police and fire brigades by radio or phone if security is breached or fire is detected

    opicking up and ensuring the safe delivery of cash, payrolls and valuables

    ooperating coin and currency counting machines, and carrying out cash counting and packaging functions

    omaintaining order at venues where there are large gatherings of people

    oconducting investigations for clients and preparing evidence for court proceedings

    odetecting and investigating theft and other unlawful acts carried out in retail establishments

    oadvising clients on security requirements and designing security specifications

    ….

    442216 SECURITY CONSULTANT

    
    Advises clients on security requirements, and recommends and designs security specifications. Registration or licensing may be required.

    Skill Level: 3

14. The nominated occupation, Security Consultant, is a Skill Level 3 occupation. It requires qualifications AQF Certificate III including at least two years of on-the-job training, or AQF Certificate IV, or at least three years of relevant experience may substitute for the formal qualifications. The applicant provided to the Department evidence that he had a Diploma of Business and an Advanced Diploma of Business. He sought to rely on those qualifications to meet the qualification requirement. The delegate formed the view that those qualifications were not relevant to the occupation. He also noted that, in the applicant’s resume under subheading “skills developed” there was no mention that he had advised clients on security requirements or developed and designed security specifications. He also noted that the applicant’s experience and skills are more aligned with that of a security guard rather than advising clients on how to meet their security requirements.

15. The applicant provided evidence to the Tribunal that the nomination application of which he was the subject was approved on 26 March 2018, nominating the occupation Security Consultant and providing a base salary of $44,798.

16. The applicant’s representative made the following written submissions to the Tribunal. The representative reported that the applicant holds a Certificate III in Security Operations, as well as a diploma and advanced diploma in business. The applicant has claimed to have more than two years’ work experience in security at the time of application. The applicant has continued to work with the nominating employer and will engage in tasks as per the ANZSCO duties for the nominated occupation, advising clients on security requirements and recommending and designing security specifications. He has been with the business for more than two years.

17. The representative has argued that the applicant’s diplomas are highly relevant because they provide the applicant with business skills for dealing with commercial contracts and the ability to understand and assist clients. He asserts it was these qualifications that were integral in the employer selecting the applicant for the position. He asserts that there is no specific security consultant qualification available as the Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management is tailored for security service personnel to be a security team leader, officer, personnel instructor or trainer, rather than a consultant.  He believes that Certificate IV is designed to fulfil a particular role in security services and provide practical skills, and does not provide knowledge or experience in a particular security service or managerial skills.  He believes the highest qualification providing experience and familiarity regarding security services is the Certificate III. It is submitted the Certificates II and III in Security Operations and the Certificate III in Cash in Transit are all relevant to the applicant’s understanding and knowledge of security services and his ability to advise clients. However to be a security consultant the nominee needs a level of business acumen for dealing with contracts and clients. The applicant’s diplomas in business are relevant to this.  The representative argues that if the subjects of the diplomas are considered against the ANZSCO tasks of the nominated occupation the qualifications are relevant to the occupation. He asserts the tasks in the ANZSCO unit group are a vague list covering the tasks of all occupations in the group which includes skill level 4 and 5 occupations. The nominated occupation is the only skill level 3 in the group.  The Security Consultant puts together a recommendation report detailing costs, requirements, benefits and procedures for system implementation. It is argued the consultant requires a good understanding of business operations, commercial contracts, delivery of service and sales, all skills he asserts are attained from the diplomas of business. The representative lists the diploma and advanced diploma subjects.  The representative asserts that the subjects are relevant to the role of Security Consultant. He draws attention to undertaking project work, planning and implementing systems, managing risk and developing workplace policy and procedures. He submits that any subjects from the Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management that might have been relevant to this occupation have been covered by the qualifications held by the applicant. He refers to a letter from the RTO (Registered Training Organisation) offering recognition of prior learning for a Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management who asserts that the applicant’s experience and qualifications should be sufficient for the role.

18. The representative submits, in the alternative that the applicant began working for First Response Security in May 2014 and then moved to the sponsoring business in August 2017. He has been slowly expanding his role in the business during this time. His move in August 2017 brought with it on-the-job practical experience and qualifications filling the role of Security Consultant for the firm. He was offered the role in June 2017 as the employer has been unable to recruit anyone for the position and believes the applicant has the skills required to perform the duties of the role. The applicant has more than five years’ experience in the security industry and two years with the sponsoring business. He is of the view this experience is relevant and therefore meets the alternative requirement in ANZSCO that three years of relevant experience may substitute for the formal qualification.

19. The representative asserts that if the Tribunal forms the view that are Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management is the only acceptable qualification at the required level for the occupation then it is submitted that the applicant has the equivalent skills and knowledge of the particular qualification on the basis of the offer from the RTO to award the Certificate IV through recognition of prior learning based on qualifications and experience attained prior to 20 June 2017. The representative notes however that the applicant did not obtain the certificate as his employer and members of the security industry did not believe that this was a requirement for him to fulfil the role of Security Consultant.

20. The applicant provided a resume which sets out his qualifications and work experience. The summary of qualifications indicates that he completed competencies for part of a Certificate III in Security Cash in Transit in October 2017, after the visa application was made. He provided a copy of a Statement of Attainment dated 10 October 2017 indicating he completed competencies for part of a Certificate III in Security Operations. He also provided a copy of a Statement of Attainment indicating he completed a unit of competency Patrol Premises on 8 October 2016.  A transcript for the Certificate III in Security Operations and the Certificate confirm he completed the course in October 2016. The Tribunal notes however that when the applicant lodged his resume with his visa application he indicated that he was still in the process of undertaking the Certificate III in Security Operations as at the time of the visa application, 20 June 2017.

21. The applicant provided a letter from the Advanced Training Institute dated 25 May 2018 stating Mr Ghiyyas Aziz believes the applicant’s experience and qualifications as at June 2017 were equivalent to Certificate IV and that he would offer the applicant to apply for a Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management on the basis of recognition of prior learning.

22. The applicant provided evidence that he has been employed by the business and on an annual salary of $49,500. He also provided information in relation to the NQ Camview Construction Site Rental System, an alarm system which captures video footage and sends it to a monitoring centre when activated.

23. The applicant provided a reference from Islamic Society of Mackay dated 8 October 2018 stating the applicant, a member of the society, has provided advice on the society’s security system requirements and helped install security cameras.

24. At the hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant the requirements of the law. The applicant confirmed that he understood he is not an exempt person. He indicated he understood that his nominated occupation did not appear in the relevant instrument for the purposes of cl.187.234(b). The Tribunal explained therefore that the applicant must meet the requirements of cl.187.234(c).

25. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his migration and employment history in Australia. He indicated he came to Australia in 2012 as the holder of a student visa. He indicated his purpose was to ‘do business’. The Tribunal asked the applicant to be more specific about the courses he enrolled in. He confirmed that he completed a course in 2013 to qualify him as a diesel fitter. He then enrolled in a diploma of business and advanced diploma of business in 2014. He changed from diesel fitting to business because he could not find work. Also he had been working as a security guard since 2012. The Tribunal asked about this employment history. In 2012 he worked for Truck Zone as a diesel fitter. However when his qualification came to an end the business shut down.  He then secured employment as a security guard. Initially he worked for CAPS Security Services, then with Asset Protection Systems, Security Ops and then First Response. His student visa ceased in 2014 and he applied for a Subclass 485 skilled visa, to work in the nominated occupation diesel mechanic. The Subclass 485 visa was granted however he was unable to secure employment as a diesel mechanic. He worked in security while holding the visa.

26. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his employment with his current sponsor. He indicated he first met the sponsor in 2012. He worked for him casually on the weekends. The Tribunal asked if this was during the period that he was working for Truck Zone, October 2012 to January 2013. He indicated he was not doing too much work for Truck Zone, maybe only two or three hours a week, two days a week. The Tribunal asked if he relied on his employment at Truck Zone to obtain a skills assessment for the nominated occupation diesel mechanic. He acknowledged that he did obtain a skills assessment from Trades Recognition Australia for that occupation on the basis of his work with Truck Zone. The Tribunal asked how he was able to gain sufficient work experience for a skills assessment if he was working only two or three hours a day, two days a week, for a 16 week period. The applicant’s response was vague. However he confirmed that he was working casual shifts as a security guard for other companies while he was undertaking his employment experience at Truck Zone.

27. The applicant indicated that he met his current sponsor in the workplace at an event in Brisbane when he was working for Asset Security. However he claimed he was not actually working for the sponsor at the time; he was introduced to the sponsor by his brother. He subsequently started working for him casually in multiple places as a security guard in Brisbane.

28. The Tribunal noted that the applicant completed units of a Certificate III in October 2017, after the visa application: The Tribunal asked why, if the applicant had already completed a Certificate III in October 2016, he undertook units in October 2017. The applicant indicated that he first completed the Certificate III at the Universal Training Institute. He had to undertake further units because some units expire every two years. This was mandatory for his security license. When asked about the units that he had to take again to maintain his licence, he indicated that it was CPR training. The Tribunal noted that in fact the units appear to be related to cash in transit and not CPR. The Tribunal noted the units were as follows: Contribute to effective workplace relationships; load and unload cash in transit in an unsecured environment; implement cash in transit security procedures; inspect and test cash in transit security equipment. It asked the applicant to explain why he was undertaking cash in transit units in October 2017 and whether he was working as a cash in transit security guard. At first he indicated to the Tribunal that it was just to have those qualifications. He then indicated that the security guard who undertook the cash in transit work had to take a day off and he did the units so that he could back him up. The Tribunal asked if it was genuinely the case that he undertook four units of a Certificate III solely for the purpose of backing up another employee because he took a day off. The applicant indicated that it was good to have someone with those units in case someone wants to have a day off. However he claimed he wants to focus on security consultancy.

1. The Tribunal asked why the applicant had undertaken units in cash in transit but no units directly relevant to security consultancy. The applicant indicated that he already had an Advanced Diploma and Diploma of Business and he thought he could rely on those qualifications. He confirmed that he has not undertaken extra study relevant to security consultancy because he believed his diplomas met the requirement for the grant of the visa.

2. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s resume provided with the visa application does not indicate that it he has developed skills in advising on security. The applicant indicated that at that stage he had not started working as a security consultant.

3. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he believes he has the qualifications necessary to perform the tasks of the nominated occupation. The applicant said he has been working in the industry since 2012 and has met with a lot of different clients. His diplomas in business have helped him grow.  The Tribunal explained that it may form the view that having considered ANZSCO that the applicant is required to have a Certificate III including at least two years of on-the-job training or a Certificate IV. It noted that the applicant seeks to rely on the Advanced Diploma and Diploma of Business. However it indicated it may not be satisfied that those diplomas are relevant to the occupation Security Consultant. It may disagree with the view that the Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management is not relevant to the nominated occupation. It asked why it should be satisfied the diplomas of business meet the qualification requirement.  The applicant indicated he believes that the Certificate IV is mainly for trainers. As a consultant he will meet with clients and advise on how to secure their business. Also his diplomas will assist his company grow the business. He is able to discuss with clients there security requirements and give them ideas for securing their premises. The diplomas in business will assist him in building good relationships and increasing business for his sponsor.

4. The Tribunal then took evidence from Mr Dodeja who commented that in his view the applicant was very nervous and may not have been able to explain why he meets the requirements. He explained that he runs six or seven different security businesses and he does not have a Certificate IV or an MBA. He added that the applicant had undertaken the cash in transit units to more fully understand the security industry. The Tribunal noted that while Mr Dodeja was of the view the applicant had undertaken the cash in transit units for that reason, the applicant’s explanation was somewhat different. It explained that he indicated that he undertook the units to cover for a person who was taking a day off. Mr Dodeja thought that the applicant had covered the person about two or three months before the hearing. The Tribunal asked why in those circumstances the applicant would have undertaken the units in October 2017. Mr Dodeja indicated that he undertook the units as a backup.

5. Mr Dodeja indicated he believes the applicant’s diplomas of business meet the qualification requirements because they assist in running and helping grow the business. He questioned what a Certificate IV holder would be able to do with the qualification. He indicated the business qualifications cover issues such as advising clients and he has a good knowledge of the industry. He indicated that the applicant is not just selling normal alarm systems. He has recently come up with a solution involving the use of the NQ Camview system. Mr Dodeja is of the view the applicant can advise clients and he got that skill from his diplomas. He believes the diplomas have taught him how to deal with people in the real world, and to grow and sustain the company.

6. The Tribunal also took oral evidence from Mr Jones, the General Manager -Business Development & Strategy. Mr Jones explained he has been involved in the security industry for 10 years in tier 1 security. He has known Mr Dodeja for five or six years. He started working in the business in a management capacity about 12 months ago and he has known the applicant for about six months. He is familiar with the applicant’s current qualifications. He acknowledged that the applicant has a Certificate III in Security Operations. He believes he is knowledgeable and is able to act in a consultant role. He is well respected by the clients. Mr Jones holds a Certificate IV but he is not a security officer. He has a background in law enforcement. He indicated that the RTO, Advanced Training Institute, advised that in their opinion the applicant did not need a Certificate IV.

7. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any other evidence to give as to why it should be satisfied that he meets the qualification requirement in cl.187.234(c). The applicant indicated he is of the view the Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management offers only limited knowledge. His diplomas offer more knowledge about growing the business, meeting new clients, and offering the best service in terms of price. As a consultant he thinks this would work in his favour.

8. After the hearing the applicant representative provided written submissions from the applicant. The applicant states that he originally asked the RTO about getting a Certificate IV in Security and that he intended to get a Certificate IV to better perform the duties. He then went through each of the subjects from his diploma courses arguing why they are essential to the role of Security Consultant. These include managing meetings, planning and implementing administrative systems, managing business document design and development, managing recruitment selection and induction processes, developing a workplace learning environment, implementing continuous improvement, managing risk, managing personal work priorities and professional development, planning and establishing compliance management systems, managing knowledge and information, contributing to organisation development, managing finances, managing market research, developing organisational marketing objectives, undertaking project work and developing workplace policy and procedures for sustainability. The applicant asserts that he cannot think of a qualification which would have given him better skills for the job.

9. The Tribunal notes that the level of detail provided in this written submission is significantly greater than that provided in the applicant’s oral evidence.  

   Did the applicant have the qualifications listed in ANZSCO as being necessary to perform the tasks of the occupation?

10. The applicant has nominated the occupation Security Consultant. In order to meet cl.187.234(c), on the basis of the information in ANZSCO, the applicant must have had, at the time of application, a AQF Certificate III including at least two years of on-the-job training, or AQF Certificate IV (ANZSCO Skill Level 3). The Tribunal notes that at least three years of relevant experience may substitute for the formal qualifications.

11. The delegate acknowledged that the applicant held a Diploma of Business and an Advanced Diploma of Business, a higher qualification than a Certificate IV, however he formed the view these courses were not relevant to the occupation Security Consultant.

12. The Tribunal finds the applicant has a Certificate III in Security Operations which he was awarded in October 2016. Since then he has undertaken further units for the Certificate III in Security Operations in October 2017 in relation to cash in transit. The applicant has not submitted that he undertook at least two years of on-the-job training as part of his Certificate III.  The Tribunal also finds that the applicant has a Diploma of Business and an Advanced Diploma of Business awarded in March 2015. At the hearing the applicant told the Tribunal he seeks to rely on these diplomas of business to meet the qualification requirement. He argues that the Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management is not as relevant to his nominated occupation.  Having considered the Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management the Tribunal does not agree that this qualification is not relevant to the nominated occupation. That Certificate covers topics such as managing threat and risk, undertaking assessments, advising on security needs and monitoring and reviewing security operations. The representative is of the view that the Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management is tailored for security service personnel to be a security team leader, officer, personnel instructor or trainer, rather than a consultant. The applicant told the Tribunal he believed the Certificate IV was mainly for trainers. The Tribunal is not persuaded by this. The Tribunal is of the view the Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management is in fact relevant to the nominated occupation.

13. While his oral evidence at the hearing about the relevance of his diploma qualifications in business was somewhat rudimentary, the applicant has now provided detailed written submissions about why he thinks the subjects he undertook in those diplomas are relevant to the nominated occupation and should be considered sufficient to meet the qualification requirement. The Tribunal has taken into account his written submissions and those of the representative as to why those courses are relevant to the nominated occupation. The Tribunal accepts that the courses have given the applicant’s skills that may be an advantage to the business in that they have improved his communication skills with clients and have improved his capacity to grow the business. However it is of the view that while the business diplomas may be of general usefulness they are not directly relevant to the specific skills of a security consultant. The Tribunal has considered the tasks of the nominated occupation, as described in ANZSCO: to advise clients on security requirements and recommend and design security specifications. It is of the view these duties are specific and require particular knowledge about security and risk management. The Tribunal takes into account the assertions that Mr Dodeja employed the applicant because of his business qualifications however it notes these qualifications were seen as enhancing the applicant’s ability to communicate and assist in running and helping grow the business.

14. The Tribunal has considered the letter from Mr Aziz of Advanced Training Institute dated 25 May 2018, who believes the applicant’s experience and qualifications as at June 2017 were equivalent to the Certificate IV and that he would offer the applicant to apply for a Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management on the basis of recognition of prior learning. However the Tribunal notes this offer was made after the visa application and ultimately the applicant decided not to pursue it. The Tribunal also notes the applicant’s oral evidence that in the resume provided with the visa application he did not indicate that it he had developed skills in advising on security because at that stage he had not started working as a security consultant. He did not move to the role until August 2017. Therefore Mr Aziz made the offer of the Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management on the basis of the applicant’s existing Certificate III qualification and his experience as a security guard.  Having considered his duties as a Security Guard, as described in his resume, the Tribunal is of the view those duties are consistent with the duties described in ANZSCO for the occupation Security Guard, a Skill Level 5 occupation. This is discussed in more detail below.

15. The Tribunal has taken into account the evidence of Mr Dodeja who questions what a Certificate IV holder would do in the occupation. The Tribunal however is of the view the Certificate IV is directly relevant to the occupation. While Mr Dodeja believes the diplomas of business are more directly relevant to the occupation, the Tribunal notes his evidence focuses on the complementary benefits of communicating and growing the business.  The Tribunal has also had regard to Mr Jones’ view that the applicant is knowledgeable, is able to act in a consultant role and is well respected by the clients.  However it notes Mr Jones has known the applicant for about six months, that is, after the visa application was made.

16. The Tribunal is of the view, having considered the diplomas of business overall and the ANZSCO description of the role of a Security Consultant, that those qualifications may complement the applicant’s skills but are not sufficiently relevant to satisfy the qualification requirement. 

17. The Tribunal has considered the representative’s arguments that the applicant’s Certificate III and employment experience should be considered sufficient, or that his five years’ experience is relevant and therefore meets the alternative requirement in ANZSCO that three years of relevant experience may substitute for the formal qualification. The Tribunal has considered his duties as a security guard as described in his resume. It notes the applicant has provided an amended resume to the Tribunal which states that he undertook consulting and talked clients directly on how to improve security efficiency however it also notes that in his oral evidence he told the Tribunal that he had not started undertaking those duties until August 2017. The Tribunal also notes this duty was not included in the resume he provided to the Department with his visa application. The Tribunal notes that his other skills were recorded as follows: managing records of company assets and equipment; patrol premises and monitoring CCTV operations; carrying cash money… including having a GPS/camera installed vehicle in an unsecured environment while carrying cash money/cheques; apply first aid/conduct CPR; develop greater skills in identifying potential troublemakers and deescalating potential volatile situations; customer service administrator/as crowd controller; check IDs making sure no underage person gains access to club/pub; use metal detectors at checkpoints where access is restricted. The Tribunal notes that apart from the general assertion that the applicant has undertaken security consulting his other duties are those of a Security Guard, a Skill Level 5 occupation. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been working in the security industry for five years before making his visa application (and also studying and working as a diesel mechanic as the holder of a student visa in part of that time) the Tribunal has formed the view that the duties undertaken were not at the level of a Skill Level 3 occupation. The Tribunal is of the view the level of complexity of the nominated occupation Security Consultant is significantly greater than that of a Security Guard. It is therefore not satisfied that his experience as a Security Guard is relevant experience which may substitute for the formal qualification.

18. Accordingly the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant had at the time of application the qualifications in ANZSCO to perform the tasks of the occupation. Therefore cl.187.234(c) is not met.

19. For these reasons the Tribunal finds the applicant does not meet cl.187.234.

20. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream. No claims have been made in respect of the other visa streams. As the requirements that must be met by a person seeking the visa in the Direct Entry stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

21. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa.

    Denise Connolly

    Member