Pandya (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Graduate (Subclass 485) visa by Mr Jignesh Umeshbhai Pandya. The applicant sought to satisfy the Australian study requirement with a Master of Business Administration qualification, which he contended was closely related to his nominated skilled occupation of Software Engineer. The delegate refused the visa application, finding that the Master of Business Administration course was not closely related to the nominated occupation. Mr Pandya appealed this decision to the Tribunal for review.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Pandya's Master of Business Administration course was closely related to the nominated occupation of Software Engineer, as stipulated by Regulation 485.222 of the Migration Regulations. This involved assessing the connection between the units of study within the qualification and the skill requirements and definitions of the Software Engineer occupation as outlined in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO).

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the primary decision, the relevant legislation, the evidence provided by the applicant, and the ANZSCO definition for Software Engineer. The Tribunal was guided by established case law from the Federal Court of Australia, including *Dhillon*, *Talha*, and *Constantino v The Minister*, which have interpreted the term "closely related". These authorities establish that while an exact correspondence is not necessary, the relationship between the course of study and the nominated occupation must be more than merely complementary, requiring a discernible connection. The Tribunal noted that a previous qualification in IT had been considered closely related.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the Master of Business Administration qualification was not closely related to the occupation of Software Engineer.