Shi (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Ms Shi, against the decision not to grant her a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – graduate work stream. The primary dispute revolved around whether Ms Shi's most recent qualification was closely related to her nominated skilled occupation, and whether she met the Australian study requirement within the specified timeframe. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine two key issues: firstly, whether Ms Shi met the Australian study requirement in the six months immediately preceding her visa application, and secondly, whether each of the qualifications she relied upon to satisfy this requirement was closely related to her nominated skilled occupation. The applicant had listed a Diploma of Information Technology, a Bachelor of Science in Information Technology, and an Advanced Diploma of Translating as her Australian studies.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the Diploma of Information Technology and the Advanced Diploma of Translating qualified as diplomas, and the Bachelor of Science in Information Technology as a degree, for the purposes of the Australian study requirement. It was satisfied that these courses were registered and completed over a sufficient period, with all instruction provided in English. However, the Tribunal determined that Ms Shi's qualification in interpreting and translating was not closely related to the nominated occupation of developer programmer. The Tribunal reasoned that the relationship between a qualification and an occupation must be more than merely complementary, and that while some units of study might have had a tangential connection, the core of the interpreting qualification did not directly align with the ANZSCO description of a developer programmer. The Tribunal also noted that other, potentially more relevant qualifications, were completed more than six months before the visa application.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Ms Shi a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision not to grant secondary applicants Subclass 485 visas, as they did not meet the criteria for being a member of the family unit of a Subclass 485 visa holder and had not demonstrated they met the primary visa criteria in their own right.