Sekhon (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr Sekhon, an applicant for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa. The applicant sought to satisfy the primary criteria for this visa, specifically the Australian study requirement and the requirement that any qualifications used to meet this requirement be closely related to their nominated skilled occupation. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met these criteria.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had satisfied the Australian study requirement and, crucially, whether the applicant's most recently completed course of study, a Diploma in Building and Construction (Management), was "closely related" to their nominated skilled occupation. The applicant had completed a Certificate III in Painting and Decorating and subsequently the Diploma in Building and Construction (Management). Evidence was presented regarding the subjects studied in the diploma, the applicant's work experience as a painter, and a provisional trade assessment.

The Tribunal reasoned that for a qualification to be considered "closely related" to a nominated occupation, there must be a demonstrable connection between the subjects studied and the practical skills of the trade. While the applicant had provided a list of subjects from their diploma, the Tribunal found that these subjects, such as "Administration of Legal Obligation of a Building or Construction Contractor" and "Manage budget and financial plans," were primarily managerial and administrative in nature, rather than directly related to the applied trade skills of painting and decorating. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the diploma was closely related to their nominated occupation as required by regulation 485.222.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485. The applicant failed to satisfy the criteria for the visa, and as this was the only relevant subclass, the decision under review was upheld.