Thapa (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, specifically the post-study work stream of the Subclass 485 visa. The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse this visa. The core of the dispute centred on whether the applicant met the Australian study requirement for the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria for the Subclass 485 visa, particularly subclauses 485.231(1), (2), and (3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the applicant held a qualification specified by the Minister, whether it was awarded by a specified educational institution, and crucially, whether the study for that qualification met the 'Australian study requirement' in the six months immediately preceding the visa application.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant held a Masters of Arts (Applied Linguistics), which was a specified qualification awarded by a specified institution, the study for this qualification was completed more than six months before the visa application was made. The applicant also held a Graduate Diploma in Education, which was not a specified qualification. The Tribunal noted the applicant's admission that they had applied for the wrong visa stream and would not meet the criteria for the graduate work stream either. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the primary criteria for the visa.

As the applicant failed to meet the primary criteria for the Subclass 485 visa, and no other relevant visa subclass was applicable, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The decision not to grant the applicant the Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa was therefore upheld.