Radadia (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Mr. Radadia for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, specifically the Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa under the Graduate Work stream. The dispute arose because Mr. Radadia claimed he had inadvertently applied for the wrong stream, intending to apply for the Post-Study Work stream instead. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether Mr. Radadia satisfied the criteria for the visa as applied for, or if his application could be assessed against his intended stream.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Radadia had made a valid application for the Subclass 485 visa, and if so, whether he met the specific requirements for the Graduate Work stream. This involved considering the requirements of clause 485.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates evidence of a skills assessment for the nominated occupation when applying for the Graduate Work stream, a requirement absent in the Post-Study Work stream. The Tribunal also had to assess whether Mr. Radadia's stated lack of awareness of the two streams at the time of application could permit the application to be considered under his intended stream, even if not explicitly nominated.

The Tribunal reasoned that a valid visa application requires nominating a specific stream, and an applicant cannot hold an intention to select a particular stream if they were unaware of its existence. Evidence from Mr. Radadia's application form indicated he nominated the Graduate Work stream and explicitly answered "No" to having applied for a skills assessment, which is a mandatory requirement for that stream. The Tribunal concluded that, based on the application as lodged and Mr. Radadia's stated lack of awareness of the alternative stream, he had not satisfied the criteria for the Graduate Work stream. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.