Navanitham (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – Post-Study Work stream, brought by Navanitham. The applicant sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse the visa, which was based on the assertion that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of their course completion date to satisfy a criterion under the *Migration Regulations 1994* (the Regulations). The decision was heard by Bridget Cullen.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 485.231 of the Regulations, specifically concerning the Australian study requirement. This involved determining if the applicant held a specified qualification, if that qualification was awarded by a specified educational institution, and if their study for that qualification satisfied the Australian study requirement within the six months preceding the visa application. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "completed" in relation to a qualification and the duration of an "academic year" for the purposes of the Australian study requirement.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's Bachelor of Photography qualification was specified by the relevant instrument (IMMI 13/013) and was conferred by Griffith University, which was also a specified educational institution under IMMI 13/031. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant met the Australian study requirement as defined by regulation 1.15F(1), which requires completion of a registered course 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 Tribunal interpreted "completed" to mean meeting the academic requirements for the award of the qualification and defined an "academic year" as at least 46 weeks.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant satisfied clause 485.231 of the Regulations. The Tribunal therefore remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant meets this specific criterion.