Singh (Migration)

The applicant, a 22-year-old from India, sought review of a decision concerning his application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa, in the Graduate Work stream. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the primary criteria for the visa, specifically those relating to his nominated skilled occupation. The applicant had completed several vocational courses in automotive mechanical technology and had obtained a successful skills assessment from Trades Recognition Australia (TRA) for the occupation of Motor Mechanic (General). He also provided evidence of part-time work as a mechanic and current study towards a Bachelor of Business (Management).

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant could satisfy the requirements of clauses 485.223 and 485.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which concern the applicant's skills in relation to their nominated skilled occupation. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had met the requirement of having applied for an assessment of his skills for the nominated occupation by a relevant assessing authority at the time of his visa application. The applicant contended that he had made an unintentional error in his online application, mistakenly selecting "chef" as his nominated occupation when it should have been "Motor Mechanic (General)," for which he held a valid TRA assessment.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's submissions and the evidence, including his qualifications and the TRA assessment for Motor Mechanic (General). It acknowledged the principle that an applicant generally cannot change their nominated occupation. However, the Tribunal also noted that there was no definitive answer regarding the correction of a clearly unintended mistake in the nominated occupation, particularly when considering the underlying courses of study and the submitted skills assessment against the intended occupation. Guided by the reasoning in *Akbar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2019] FCA 515, the Tribunal found that the applicant's error in occupation selection was a mistake capable of correction.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant met the requirements of clauses 485.223 and 485.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant satisfied these specific criteria.