Raj Pratap Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa, Post Study Work stream, before the Tribunal. The applicant had applied for the visa but indicated that he was seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for the Graduate Work stream, which required evidence of a skills assessment for a nominated occupation. The applicant did not provide this evidence, acknowledging he had not obtained a skills assessment prior to making his application.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had made a valid application for the Graduate Work stream, and if not, whether the Tribunal had the power to consider his application as if it were for the Post Study Work stream, for which no skills assessment was required. The applicant contended that he had inadvertently selected the wrong stream online due to confusion about the requirements, and that his intention was to apply for the Post Study Work stream.

The Tribunal considered relevant case law, including *Singh v MICMSMA* [2020] FCA 774 and *Abdul v MIBP* [2021] FCCA 349, which established that the Minister has no power to grant a visa in a stream other than the one applied for, and the Tribunal has no power to consider an application other than one validly made. These decisions indicated that an applicant's claimed intention to apply for a different stream, where a valid application was made for one stream, would not be considered. Despite this, the Tribunal found that the applicant met the requirements of cl 485.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant meets the criteria specified in cl 485.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.