Tompoulidis (Migration)

Case

[2017] AATA 432

22 March 2017


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Tompoulidis (Migration) [2017] AATA 432 [2017] AATA 432 22 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal by an applicant seeking a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, subclass 485, in the Graduate Work stream. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant had satisfied the primary criteria for the visa, specifically clause 485.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which pertains to the applicant's skills in relation to their nominated skilled occupation.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had met the requirement under clause 485.223, which mandates that a visa application must be accompanied by evidence of an application for a skills assessment by a relevant assessing authority for the nominated skilled occupation at the time the visa application was made. The applicant had nominated the occupation of carpenter, for which Trades Recognition Australia (TRA) is the specified relevant assessing authority.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had answered "no" to the question on the visa application form regarding whether they had applied to a relevant assessing authority. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide any further information to the Department regarding a skills assessment at the time of lodging the application or shortly thereafter. Crucially, the applicant did not make an application for a skills assessment from TRA prior to lodging the visa application on 21 November 2016; an application was only made on 20 January 2016, after the visa had been refused. While the applicant and his partner provided evidence that they believed they could lodge the visa application without the skills assessment and that the Department would request it later, and that they had received advice from TRA and the Department to this effect, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the visa application, as lodged, was accompanied by the required evidence of a skills assessment application. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Judicial Review

  • Jurisdiction

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0