Okiror (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485, Graduate Work stream, for the occupation of ICT Business Analyst. The central dispute concerned whether the applicant had met the requirement that their visa application be "accompanied by" evidence of having applied for a relevant skills assessment at the time of lodgement.

The Tribunal was required to determine the meaning of the phrase "accompanied by" in the context of the visa application requirements, specifically clause 485.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This clause mandates that an application for a Subclass 485 visa must be accompanied by evidence that the applicant has applied for a skills assessment by a relevant assessing authority for their nominated skilled occupation. The Tribunal also had to consider the degree of flexibility, if any, that could be applied to this requirement.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that while they had lodged their online visa application on 7 September 2017, answering "no" to possessing an approved skills assessment at that moment, they received documented approval from the Australian Computer Society (ACS) later on the same day. The Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant had not physically included evidence of their skills assessment application lodged in August 2017 with their initial online lodgement. However, applying the principles from *Nguyen v MIBP* and *Anand v MIAC*, the Tribunal found that a measure of flexibility applies to the term "accompanied by," meaning the evidence does not strictly need to be provided at the exact moment of application lodgement, particularly given the practicalities of online applications. As the applicant received their satisfactory skills assessment on the same day as lodging their visa application, the Tribunal concluded that the criterion was met.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant had met the requirements of clauses 485.223 and 485.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.