Uday (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485, heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant the visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had met the English language proficiency requirements at the time of lodging the visa application.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied clause 485.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that a visa application must be accompanied by evidence of having undertaken a specified language test and achieved the required score within a specified period, or alternatively, holding a passport of a specified type. The applicant had undertaken an IELTS test on the day of lodging the application, but the specified score was not achieved prior to the lodgement.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not met the requirements of clause 485.212(a) as the evidence did not demonstrate that the English language test was undertaken and the specified score achieved prior to or at the time of application, as required by the relevant instrument, IMMI 15/062. The applicant also did not meet the alternative requirement under clause 485.212(b) as they did not hold a specified type of passport. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.

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