Tan (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr Tan, an applicant for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – Post-Study Work stream. The central dispute concerned whether Mr Tan satisfied the Australian study requirement for the visa, specifically in relation to the course completion date for his Master of Physiotherapy qualification.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Tan held a qualification specified by the Minister, whether that qualification was conferred by a specified educational institution, and crucially, when he satisfied the Australian study requirement, which mandates completion of study within the six months immediately preceding the visa application. This involved interpreting the meaning of "course completion date" in the context of the applicant's academic and administrative milestones.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant held a specified qualification from a specified institution, the precise date of course completion was key. Evidence from Curtin University indicated that the applicant's formal coursework concluded on 11 April 2019, with subsequent dates representing administrative steps such as advice and the issuance of an administrative notice. Applying principles from cases such as *Venkatesan v MIAC* and *Sapkota v MIAC*, the Tribunal found that purely administrative acts did not negate the actual completion of academic effort. Therefore, the course completion date was determined to be 11 April 2019, which satisfied the requirement of being within six months of the visa application.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that Mr Tan met the criterion under clause 485.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The matter was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining visa criteria.