SUMAN (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa, Subclass 482, medium-term stream, for the occupation of Motor Mechanic. The applicant had been assessed by the Department, which found that he did not meet the requirement of having at least two years of experience in the nominated occupation. The applicant subsequently sought review of this decision before the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had demonstrated the requisite two years of work experience in the nominated occupation or a related field, as required by clause 482.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Department's delegate had placed significant weight on the fact that the applicant's earlier experience as an apprentice mechanic in Italy was obtained almost eight years prior to the visa application, and that he had subsequently worked for seven years in an unrelated role as a warehouse manager. While the delegate acknowledged the applicant's approximately six months of experience in Australia as a mechanic, they were not satisfied that this experience, combined with the older Italian experience, met the criteria, particularly in light of departmental policy guidelines that favoured more recent experience.

Upon review, the Tribunal considered additional documentation provided by the applicant, including employment contracts, timesheets, payslips, and a letter from his employer confirming his ongoing employment and detailing his duties as a mechanic. The Tribunal was satisfied that these duties were consistent with the nominated occupation. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that over two and a half years had passed since the Department's decision, during which time the applicant had continued to work in the nominated position. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had met the criteria under clause 482.231.

The Tribunal remitted the applications for Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visas for reconsideration, with a direction that the first named applicant meets the criteria under clause 482.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. As the review applications of the second and third named applicants were dependent on the primary applicant meeting the visa criteria, their applications were also remitted for reconsideration of the secondary visa criteria.