MOHAMMED (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, specifically within the Graduate (Post-study work) stream, subclass 485. The applicant sought to satisfy the primary criteria for this visa, which included meeting specific Australian study requirements. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant's study for a qualification was completed within the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the visa application. The decision was made by Denise Connolly, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied the Australian study requirement as defined by the Migration Regulations. This requirement, under regulation 1.15F(1), necessitates the completion of one or more degrees, diplomas, or trade qualifications from an Australian educational institution. These qualifications must be from registered courses, completed over at least 16 calendar months, involving at least two academic years of study, with all instruction in English, and undertaken in Australia on a visa authorising study. The specific question was whether the applicant's study for their Master of Information Technology was completed within the six months prior to their visa application.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, which indicated completion of a Master of Information Technology at Charles Sturt University between 4 November 2012 and 27 February 2015. The Tribunal was satisfied that the course was registered, conducted in English, completed over 104 weeks (exceeding the minimum 92 weeks for two academic years), and completed within at least 16 calendar months, while the applicant held a valid student visa. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant met the Australian study requirement on 27 February 2015. However, the visa application criteria stipulated that the study must have been completed in the period of six months ending immediately before the application date. As the applicant's study completion date of 27 February 2015 fell outside this specified period, they did not meet this criterion.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa. As this was the only relevant visa subclass under consideration, the Tribunal's decision was to affirm the original decision.