Ramandeep Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ramandeep Singh against a decision to affirm the refusal of his application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, specifically a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa. The core of the dispute revolved around Mr. Singh's English language proficiency, which was a mandatory requirement for the visa subclass. The decision was made by Jade Murphy, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr. Singh satisfied the requirements of clause 485.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that an applicant must provide evidence of having undertaken a specified language test and achieved the required score within the specified period, or hold a passport of a type specified by the Minister. The relevant instrument, IMMI 15/062, stipulated an overall band score of 6.0 for the International English Language Test System (IELTS).

The Tribunal found that Mr. Singh did not meet the criteria under clause 485.212(b) as he did not hold a specified passport. Consequently, he was required to satisfy clause 485.212(a). While Mr. Singh had submitted an IELTS result from 10 December 2018, his overall band score was 5.5, which was below the required 6.0. Mr. Singh acknowledged at the hearing that he was unaware of the minimum score requirement and believed 5.5 was sufficient. He also submitted that the timing of his graduation and academic results, coupled with the stress of preparing his visa application without migration assistance, contributed to his oversight. However, the Tribunal noted that the evidence of meeting the English language requirement must have accompanied the visa application at the time of lodgement. As the submitted IELTS result did not meet the specified minimum score, clause 485.212(a) was not satisfied.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that Mr. Singh did not meet the requirements of clause 485.212 and therefore did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.