Singh (Migration)

[2022] AATA 819

Singh (Migration) [2022] AATA 819 (4 April 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Priya Singh

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mrs Babban Sethi Lamba (MARN: 1803056)

CASE NUMBER:  2115663

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/14694581

MEMBER:Alison Mercer

DATE:4 April 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.

Statement made on 4 April 2022 at 2:35pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – post-study work stream – Australian study requirement – completion of relevant course within 6 months before application made – application made after completing course work and practical placements but before official notification of completion – anxiety about longer processing times and pending expiration of student visa – no assistance from agent or lawyer – course ‘completed’ on date results finalised by institution – no discretion to waive requirement – value of professional work in regional area to employer – possibility of seeking ministerial intervention – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 351

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15F(1), (2), Schedule 2, cl 485.231(3)

CASES

Ali v MICMSMA [2021] FCA 1311

Sapkota v MIAC [2012] FMCA 137; [2012] FCA 981

Venkatesan v MIAC [2008] FMCA 409

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 22 October 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 1 May 2020. Visa Class VC contains subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate). The criteria for the grant of a subclass 485 visa are set out in Part 485 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations), including criteria in different streams. In this case, the applicant is seeking to meet the criteria in the Post-Study Work stream, which include cl 485.231

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not satisfy cl 485.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which required that (amongst other things) the applicant satisfied the Australian study requirement in the 6 month period immediately preceding the lodgment of the visa application. The delegate noted that the applicant stated in her application that she had completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in Australia between 18 July 2014 and 17 March 2018, and a Masters of Counselling degree in Australia between 22 February 2018 and 29 April 2020. The delegate found, however, that when the applicant provided her relevant academic transcripts and letters of completion, these indicated that she completed her Bachelor degree on 14 December 2017 (more than 6 months before she made her subclass 485 visa application) while the completion date for her Masters degree was 6 July 2020, after she made her subclass 485 visa application. As the applicant did not have any other relevant Australian qualifications to assess, the delegate found that the applicant did not meet the Australian study requirement in the 6 month period before her visa application and thus did not meet cl.485.231.

4. The Tribunal received a review application from the applicant on 3 November 2021. It was accompanied by a copy of the delegate’s decision and a statement from the applicant. The contents of the applicant were as follows:

   …

   After reading the assessment on the notice of refusal, I have understood that my application is refused because I have made the application on 1st of May 2020, whereas the official completion date mentioned on my master degree is 06th of July 2020.

   In this reference I wish to plead following for your kind review.

   The year 2020 the entire world was struggling with the impact of COVID-19, the travel restrictions were in place and my student visa was valid only up to 30th July 2020. Being in Australia without any support of family and no other means of income/survival, I was extremely worried about my visa getting expired and I unlawfully getting stuck during covid-19 crisis, there was lot of uncertainty and immense anxiety in my mind about how long the next visa processing will take place during the COVID-19 situation.

   Therefore, being a law abiding and responsible person and being mindful of the fact that in the ongoing covid-19 situation the visa processing time might take much longer than the usual processing time, in good faith to allow for additional processing time, as soon as my “Master of Counselling” academic session got over i.e. after completing my counselling supervision and placement group 2 requirement.

   While reading the Notice of Refusal, I now understand that making an application on 1st may 2020 was a mistake on my part, however I humbly request you that while making the review please do consider the fact that I have submitted the application myself without any professional assistance of any immigration agent or lawyer and due to the lack of in-depth knowledge of immigration and visa rules and under the heavy anxiety and uncertainty on my mind about my visa getting expired on the 30th of July 2020 during uncertain times of covid-19 crisis, it was therefore an inadvertent and genuine oversight/mistake.

   I wish to emphasize that I have duly and timely updated my Master Degree and changes in my address and circumstances using the IMMI account.

   This inadvertent and genuine oversight regarding the six month rule while making the application only happened due my lack of knowledge of visa rules and the extreme anxiety of my student visa expiry during Covid-19 crisis played heavy on my mind and with good intentions and good faith I was only allowing for additional processing time during covid-19 situation.

   This inadvertent and genuine oversight regarding the six month rule while making the application only happened due my lack of knowledge of visa rules and the extreme anxiety of my student visa expiry during Covid-19 crisis played heavy on my mind and with good intentions and good faith I was only allowing for additional processing time during covid-19 situation.

   I greatly respect Australian law and Australian values, during this period of covid-19 crisis, I have served in the area of mental health as a counsellor for about 8 months at Kalgoorlie ( regional area ) and currently I am working as counsellor with “CARER WA” at Perth, The refusal of my graduate work visa due to my inadvertent and genuine oversight will not only jeopardise and end my current employment, it will create a distress situation for me to make emergency international travel back to India during this covid-19 situation.

   I therefore humbly and sincerely request you to kindly review the rejection of my work-visa application with empathy and compassion and save me from this distress situation by kindly granting me the graduate work visa or at least permit me adequate time to make a fresh application for the temporary graduate work visa or any other appropriate visa and allow me to stay with the bridging visa till the processing of fresh application is finalised.

   …

5. On 27 January 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to invite her to attend a hearing via videoconference on 18 February 2022.

6. On 7 February 2022, the applicant appointed a registered migration agent, Mrs Babban Sethi Lamba, to be her representative and authorised recipient for correspondence. The applicant indicated that she and her agent would attend the hearing.

7. On 11 February 2022, the applicant’s agent provided the following:

   ·statement by the applicant; and

   ·letter from Richard Newman, Head of Service Delivery, Carers WA dated 10 February 2022.

8. In her statement, the applicant makes the following points:

   …

   I, Priya Singh, writing this statement to the Tribunal Member in support of my application SC485.

   Summary of reasons for refusal

   I made an application for Temporary Graduate Visa SC 485 on 1 May 2020 which was refused on 22 October 21 for the following reason: 

   The Delegate was not satisfied that the applicant meets the criteria of 485.231 as the coursework was not completed in the last 6 months ending immediately before the day the application was made.

   The letter of completion for the Master of Counselling qualification from Murdoch University Australia as per which the applicant has completed her course on 6 July 2020 which was after the date of the application.

   Relevant law

   Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) sch 2 cl 485.231

   1.       I arrived in Perth in July 2014 on Student Visa to pursue Bachelor of Arts, Psychology from The University of Western Australia (UWA). The visa grant number 1340111041815X was valid from 14 July 2014 until 28 August 2017.

   2.       A further student visa was applied to complete the course. I held a bridging visa until I received a new visa grant number 0049510713693 valid until 31 January 2018.

   3.       After that I commenced a Master's degree in Counselling from Murdoch University, Perth. A new student visa grant number 2009510694187 was valid from 30 January 2018 until 15 March 2020.

   4.       Once again, a further student visa grant number 0049500188659 was valid until 30 July 2020 to complete the course.

   5.       I lodged all the visa applications with the help of my father, Pramod Singh. We did not face any difficulties in lodging the application.

   6.       I was checking the details on “how to lodge SC485” as my student visa was valid until 20 July 2020. I was under the impression that visa must be lodged before time and I panicked by the alert on the department of home affairs website ( about the possible delays in application processing due to the COVID 19 pandemic. I applied for the Temporary Graduate Visa (Class VC, subclass 485) on 1 May 2020. I was trying to be proactive to be in compliance with the immigration laws and be on top of the situation just in case.

   7.       I did not hide any facts and lodged the application with the help of my father Pramod Singh as we were under the same belief that visa matters must be sorted well before time.

   8.       I updated the immigration account about the official course completion letter as soon as I received it which was on 12 August 2020.

   9.       On 22 October 2021 I received a visa refusal letter. I was shocked as I carefully checked the correctness of all the information submitted during the application process. Also, I did not receive any error notification preventing me from making the application.

   10.      I am currently employed as a full-time counsellor with Carers, WA. I specialise in a broad spectrum of mental health issues, ranging from suicidal ideation to substance abuse. I am well experienced in working with children, adults, as well as, vulnerable families. My qualifications include a Bachelor of Arts, Psychology and a Master’s degree in Counselling. Please find the attached letter from my employer for your reference.

   I put forward a sincere request to the Tribunal Member to consider the facts presented, that the early submission happened due to “insufficient understanding of the process, ambiguity, and in a state of anxiety” after seeing an alert on the department of home affairs website stating the application processing will take longer due to COVID 19. Being a sincere and responsible person, I was trying to allow for additional visa processing time, by making the application as soon as possible. This is indeed a genuine and innocent mistake of facts but done in good faith and a bona fide intention to abide by the law.

   Once again, my humble request is to consider my genuine mistake of making an application before the completion date assuming that the application should always be made on time which I have learnt from my previous experience of student visa applications. I made this error in a state of anxiety as I was under the fear of being unlawful in Australia. I am requesting the respected Tribunal Member to remit my application as I have always been a genuine student and a law-abiding person in Australia.

   …

9. The letter from Mr Newman of Carers WA makes the following points:

   …

   Carers WA is able to confirm that Priya is employed in a fulltime permanent role as a Carer Support Counsellor. Priya has been in her role since 14 June 2021. 

   The carer support counselling team are federally funded, providing counselling services to WA based carers via the National Carer Gateway program.  The federal contract for this role requires a minimum of 3yrs 1:1 therapeutic counselling experience, as well as a variety of additional mental health, suicide prevention, youth and families, domestic violence and working with vulnerable families’ experience.  

   Each counselling practitioner is also contractually required to be nationally accredited with either Australian Counselling Association (ACA) or Psychology and Counselling Federation of Australia (PACFA).  Counselling services are delivered face to face, telephone and web based. 

   While there are qualified counsellors available in WA, there are very few that are able to meet the high standard of experience to be able to deliver safe therapeutic practice to carers and families with complex needs.   As such, Carers WA seeks to retain it staff as our client numbers continue to grow on a monthly basis.

   Priya is a valued member of our counselling team, and has consistently met all expectations for the role and also demonstrates the values of Carers WA when delivering services to carers – compassion, respect, innovation and diversity and inclusion.  Carers WA is committed to employing appropriately qualified practitioners who also reflect the wide demographic of our carers, that includes age, gender and culture. 

   The counselling service that Carers WA provides  for carers would certainly be negatively impacted without Priya’s ability to full fil her role as a Carer Support Counsellor.  This is further compounded by current COVID workforce shortages, where the emphasis on social distancing and tele health support is a necessity. WA carers want to speak to WA based practitioners.  

   Additionally under State guidelines for Essential Workers, Priya’s role falls into this category, and her work is in an area where there is a shortage of staff, but also supports the community through these times of growing need.

   It is without reservation that Carers WA provides this letter of support for Priya’s permanent residency application. This would also provide stability for our workforce and the service that we provide to WA based carers.

   …

10. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 18 February 2022 by video conference to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant’s agent also attended the hearing by videoconference.  

11. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by videoconference. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by videoconference, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant, including the fact that the applicant and her agent were located in Perth, Western Australia and the Presiding Member was located in Melbourne, Victoria. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by videoconference. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

12. The applicant confirmed the contents of her written statements and told the Tribunal that it was a stressful and volatile period in May 2020 as she was finishing her course, running out of funds and the COVID19 pandemic meant that the situation in Australia (and internationally) was very volatile. She was very concerned not to risk being without a visa and had read an announcement on the Department’s website that processing of subclass 485 visas was subject to delays, so she (with her father’s assistance) made her subclass 485 visa application as soon as she had finished the final subjects for her Master’s degree. She was unaware that ‘completion’ was determined by the University and meant the date that it found she had completed all the requirements for the award of the degree. In response to the Tribunal’s query, the applicant said that at the time she made her visa application on 1 May 2020, she had completed her subjects but had not yet received her results; however, she knew that she had completed them successfully (as confirmed in due course by the University) so she felt it was safe to proceed. She also noted that she was unaware that she would be entitled to a bridging visa as soon as she made the application. The applicant said that she drew on her previous experiences of applying for her student visa applications in good time, before the expiry date of the current one held.

13. In relation to her current role with Carers WA, the applicant confirmed that she was employed there approximately 8 months ago, after a competitive selection process involving several rounds of shortlisting and interviews. The applicant said that prior to this, she spent 12 months living in Kalgoorlie in remote WA for the Goldfields Rehabilitation Service, where she provided counselling and support for victims of family and sexual violence and people with alcohol and/or drug dependency problems. The applicant said that this was challenging and intense work but had provided her with good experience and contributed to her obtaining her current role. At Carers WA, her role involved providing psychotherapy and counselling to those caring for people with disabilities and disorders, who ranged from young children to the elderly. In response to the Tribunal’s query, the applicant said that from her knowledge, her employer struggled to hire suitably qualified and skilled counsellors, especially on a full time basis.

14. In response to the Tribunal’s query, the applicant confirmed that her parents and younger sister remain in India, in New Delhi, and that they have remained safe throughout the COVID19 pandemic to date. She had no family in Australia.

15. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant and her agent its view that the applicant was unable to meet cl.485.231, regardless of the compassionate and/or compelling circumstances in her case, and queried what options they had considered. The applicant’s agent indicated that they were considering a range of options, including Ministerial intervention (but this would entail the applicant going from a bridging visa A to a bridging visa E), whether her current employer would sponsor and nominate her for a temporary or permanent visa, and/or whether she was eligible for a skilled visa. The Tribunal indicated that it expected to make its decision on the matter in approximately 4 weeks, and would take into account any further material they provided prior to that time.

16. The Tribunal did not receive any further material from the applicant or her agent after the hearing.

17. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    CONSIDERATION OF LAW, CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

18. Clause 485.231 requires the applicant to hold a qualification or qualifications of a kind specified by the Minister, conferred or awarded by an educational institution specified by the Minister, for which the applicant’s study must have satisfied the ‘Australian study requirement’ in the 6 months immediately before the day the visa application was made. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets those requirements.

    Does the applicant hold a specified qualification?

19. Subclause 485.231(1) requires the applicant to hold a qualification or qualifications of a kind specified by the Minister. The relevant instrument for this purpose is IMMI 13/013. In this case, the Tribunal is satisfied from the evidence on the Department file that the applicant holds:

    ·Bachelor of Arts degree from University Western Australia; and

    ·Master of Counselling (by coursework) degree from Murdoch University, Western Australia.

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that these are both qualifications specified in that instrument.

2. Accordingly, cl 485.231(1) is met.

   Was the applicant’s qualification conferred or awarded by a specified educational institution?

3. Subclause 485.231(2) requires the applicant’s qualification or qualifications to be conferred or awarded by an educational institution specified by the Minister. The relevant instrument for this purpose is IMMI 13/031, which provides that approved educational institutions are Australian universities and non-university education providers registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) and which offer courses at degree level and above.

4. The Tribunal has examined the CRICOS and is satisfied that both the University of Western Australia and Murdoch University are both listed.

5. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s qualifications were conferred or awarded by educational institutions specified in that instrument and thus cl.485.231(2) is met.

   Does the applicant meet the Australian study requirement?

6. Subclause 485.231(3) requires that the applicant’s study for the specified qualification or qualifications met the ‘Australian study requirement’ in the 6 months immediately before the day the visa application was made.

7. Under reg 1.15F(1) of the Regulations, a person satisfies the ‘Australian study requirement’ if the person satisfies the Minister that the person has completed 1 or more degrees, diplomas or trade qualifications for award by an Australian educational institution as a result of a course or courses:

   ·that are registered courses,

   ·that were completed in a total of at least 16 calendar months,

   ·that were completed as a result of a total of at least 2 academic years study,

   ·for which all instruction was conducted in English, and

   ·that the applicant undertook while in Australia as the holder of a visa authorising the applicant to study.

8. ‘Degree’, ‘diploma’, ‘trade qualification’, ‘registered course’, ‘completed’ and ‘academic year’ are all defined terms (see regs 1.03, 1.15F and 2.26AC(6), and cl 485.111). ‘Completed’, in relation to a degree, diploma or trade qualification, means having met the academic requirements for its award (reg 1.15F(2)). For the purposes of this case, one ‘academic year’ is at least a total of 46 weeks, being the duration of a course registered under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000: LIN 19/085.

9. The Tribunal has reviewed the relevant Department records, documents provided by the applicant and relevant instruments and is satisfied that:

   ·both courses completed by the applicant are registered courses as defined in r.1.03 and are of a kind (degree level) included in r.2.26AC(6);

   ·they both involved study of at least 2 academic years (or 92 weeks) and were both completed in a total of at least 16 calendar months (as per rr.1.15F(2) and LIN 19/085);

   ·the instruction for both courses was delivered in English; and

   ·they were both completed while the applicant held a student visa.

10. The issue, as identified by the delegate, is whether either course was completed in the 6 months immediately before the day the visa application was made.

11. As noted above, the delegate found that this requirement was not met, as the academic transcripts and letters of completion provided by the applicant indicated that she completed her Bachelor degree on 14 December 2017 (more than 6 months before she made her subclass 485 visa application on 1 May 2020) while the completion date for her Masters degree was 6 July 2020, after she made her subclass 485 visa application.

12. A person satisfies the Australian study requirement if they have ‘completed’ 1 or more degrees, diplomas or trade qualifications for award by an Australian educational institution as a result of a course or courses of a specified kind that were completed in a specified way.[1] ‘Completed’ in relation to a degree, diploma or trade qualification is defined to mean ‘having met the academic requirements for its award’.[2] It is a finding of fact for the decision-maker (in this case, the Tribunal) whether a course has been completed.

    [1] reg 1.15F(1).

    [2] reg 1.15F(2), introduced by SLI 2008, No 56.

13. The relevant date for determining when a student has completed the academic requirements is the date when the relevant educational institution decides that the academic requirements have been met; namely, the date on which the results are finalised by the institution.[3] The date of submission of the final piece of assessment is not the relevant date, and nor is the date when the institution informs the student of the results, or the date of the formal conferral of the degree or other qualification at a graduation ceremony.[4]

    [3] Sapkota v MIAC [2012] FCA 981 at [26], dismissing an appeal from Sapkota v MIAC [2012] FMCA 137. Sapkota v MIAC [2012] FCA 981 was followed in Ali v MICMSMA [2021] FCA 1311 in which it was held at [39] that the date of completion is not what the university considers it should be, yet rather what Parliament says it is. Accordingly, at [48] the Court in Ali v MICMSMA [2021] FCA 1311 accepted that the language of reg 1.15F(2) referring to the ‘academic requirements’ of a degree, is comfortably met by study assessed as satisfactory and grounding the award of a degree.

    [4]Sapkota v MIAC [2012] FCA 981 and Ali v MICMSMA [2021] FCA 1311 at [46] cited with approval the decision of Burchardt FM in Venkatesan v MIAC [2008] FMCA 409 concerning an identically worded definition of ‘completed’ in item 1128CA(3)(l) of sch 1. The applicant in that case had been granted credit transfers after he had completed the relevant courses. The Court held an applicant completes the academic requirements for a course when the applicant achieves the necessary results or credits to be awarded the relevant qualifications and that credit transfers were purely administrative steps. In relation to the distinction between academic and administrative requirements for the award of a degree, his Honour observed that ‘there was nothing more for the Applicant to do of an academic nature after 2 August 2006. What was required, admittedly, were certain steps, but they were purely administrative steps that did not require any form of academic effort by Mr Venkatesan nor any evaluation of any such effort by the university’. Although in Sapkota v MIAC [2012] FCA 981 at [25] Cowdroy J referred to the point where the result of assessment for the final course of item of assessment required to complete the course has been made ‘publicly available’, at [26] this appears to be clarified as being the date on which results are finalized by the institution such that a student would be able to find out whether they had been satisfied if they contacted the institution. It was similarly held in Ali v MICMSMA [2021] FCA 1311 at [57] that whilst the date of publication of results could well indicate that an applicant’s study has been assessed as satisfactory, this does not have the effect that it is the only point in time from which it can be established that an applicant’s study has ‘passed muster’.

14. In both Sapkota v MIAC and Ali v MICMSMA, the Court was concerned with the definition of ‘completed’ as it first appears in reg 1.15F(1).[5] However, the reasoning would appear to be equally applicable to the term as it appears in regs 1.15F(1)(b) and (c) even though they are concerned with completion of the course rather than the resulting qualification.

    [5] Sapkota v MIAC [2012] FCA 981; Ali v CMSMA [2021] FCA 1311.

15. In this case, the Tribunal has reviewed the documents provided by the applicant from the universities at which she undertook her study and is satisfied that:

    ·the statement of academic record issued by the University of Western Australia issued on 20 December 2017 indicates that the applicant completed the academic requirements for the degree on 14 December 2017; and

    ·the letter of completion from Murdoch University dated 20 July 2020 states that the applicant completed all the requirements for the award of the degree on 6 July 2020.

16. The applicant did not dispute the completion date advice from either University but explained in relation to the completion of her Masters degree at Murdoch University that:

    ·she made her subclass 485 visa application with her father, but without the assistance of a migration agent or lawyer, and was not fully aware that the Australian study requirement had to be completed strictly within the 6 months prior to lodging her subclass 485 visa application;

    ·she was concerned to make her visa application a reasonable amount of time before her student visa expired [on 30 July 2020] and thus lodged her visa application on 1 May 2020 after finishing her final subjects for the course, being some practical supervision placements; and

    ·she was unaware that this was not considered the ‘completion date’ of the course until receiving the Department’s refusal decision.

17. The Tribunal has sympathy for the applicant, particularly (as she points out) she was assessed as having successfully have completed her Masters on 6 July 2020 and since that time, she has found work in her field in Western Australia, where she is a valued staff member of Carers WA. The Tribunal also notes that she could have waited until after 6 July 2020 to make her subclass 485 visa application, had she realised the significance of cl.485.231, as her student visa did not cease until 30 July 2020.

18. However, cl.485.231 does not contain or confer any discretion that would enable the Tribunal to waive the requirement to have completed a suitable Australian course in the 6 months immediately preceding the visa application (for instance, even where there might be compassionate or compelling circumstances). Moreover, there is no dispute that the applicant completed the academic requirements for her Bachelor degree more than 6 months before 1 May 2020, and that she completed the academic requirements for her Masters degree on 6 July 2020, after 1 May 2020. These findings are based on the information and assessment of the Universities who provided the courses, and there is no ambiguity in the relevant academic statement and letter of completion. Nor did the applicant dispute the dates used by the Universities.

19. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal must find that cl.485.231 is not met. It acknowledges the distress felt by the applicant at this result, given that she has completed 2 degree-level courses in Australia since 2014 and has been working in regional Western Australia in her chosen profession since graduating from her Masters degree. However, as noted above, the Tribunal has no discretion to waive or overlook the requirements of cl.485.231.

20. On the basis of the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not meet cl 485.231. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a subclass 485 visa, and as this is the only relevant subclass in this case, the decision under review will be affirmed.

21. The Tribunal notes that it is open to the applicant to seek Ministerial intervention in the event of an unsuccessful review application at the Tribunal. Section 351 of the Act confers a personal discretion on the Minister for Immigration to intervene to grant a visa even where an applicant has been unsuccessful at the Tribunal, if he or she considers it appropriate to do so; generally, where there are unique or compelling circumstances. Guidelines and information about this process are provided on the Department’s website: Ministerial intervention (homeaffairs.gov.au)

    DECISION

22. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.

    Alison Mercer
    Member