Pico Meneses (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Pico Meneses against a decision to refuse her application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) in the Graduate Work stream. The applicant nominated Engineering Technologist as her skilled occupation. The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied clause 485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires that any qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement must be closely related to the nominated skilled occupation. The applicant’s most recent qualification completed in Australia within six months of lodging her application was an Advanced Diploma of Program Management.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant’s Advanced Diploma of Program Management was "closely related" to her nominated occupation of Engineering Technologist, as required by clause 485.222 of the Regulations. The court was required to interpret the meaning of "closely related" in this context, considering that the term is not defined in the legislation and requires a relationship more than merely complementary. The court also had to determine how the nominated occupation should be assessed, including the relevance of the ANZSCO descriptions.

The court reasoned that the assessment of whether a qualification is "closely related" to a nominated occupation requires focusing on the nature of the nominated occupation itself, as defined by the ANZSCO code. This involves considering not only the specific tasks within the nominated occupation's unit group but also the broader tasks within higher groupings. The court noted that while an exact correspondence is not required, the relationship must be substantial. In this instance, the court found that the tasks involved in Program Management, particularly those relating to project management within larger groupings of engineering professionals, were core skills for Engineering Technologists. The court considered the applicant's employment as an ITS Project Engineer, where her Program Management skills were essential for managing stakeholders and project schedules, to be indicative of this close relationship.

Consequently, the court found that the applicant met the requirements of clause 485.222. The decision under review was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant satisfies this criterion.