Parmar (Migration)

The applicant, Mr Parmar, sought review of the delegate's decision to refuse his application for a subclass 485 Temporary Graduate Work Stream visa. The delegate had refused the application on the basis that Mr Parmar failed to meet the mandatory requirement under clause 485.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which necessitates that an application for this visa stream be accompanied by evidence of having applied for a skills assessment by a relevant authority. Mr Parmar had answered "No" to the question regarding his application for a skills assessment when lodging his visa application.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had the power to grant Mr Parmar a subclass 485 visa under the Post-Study Work Stream, despite his application being lodged for the Graduate Work Stream, and whether the Tribunal could overlook the failure to provide the required skills assessment evidence for the Graduate Work Stream. Mr Parmar contended that he mistakenly applied for the Graduate Work Stream when he intended to apply for the Post-Study Work Stream, a stream for which he appeared to meet the criteria.

The Tribunal, applying the principles established in *Singh* [2020] FCA 774, held that it had no power to grant a visa under a different stream than the one for which the application was made. The Tribunal reasoned that an application can only be considered against the specific stream chosen by the applicant, and the applicant cannot unilaterally change streams after lodging the application. Consequently, as Mr Parmar applied for the Graduate Work Stream, he was bound by its specific requirements, including the mandatory lodgement of evidence of a skills assessment application.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa application.