Valle (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of *Valle* concerning a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The applicant sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse to grant the visa. The refusal was based on the delegate's finding that the applicant did not possess the necessary skills, qualifications, and experience for the nominated occupation of Glazier, specifically regarding the requirement for relevant work experience to substitute for formal qualifications.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's work experience, particularly as a subcontractor, constituted "full-time employment" as required by the relevant migration regulations for the purpose of substituting formal qualifications for the nominated occupation. The Tribunal was required to determine if the nature of subcontracting work satisfied the criteria for relevant work experience and if it could be considered equivalent to full-time employment in the context of the visa application.

The Tribunal reasoned that the delegate had erred in their assessment of the applicant's work experience. It was held that the delegate had not adequately considered the applicant's extensive experience as a subcontractor, which, in the Tribunal's view, could be considered as fulfilling the requirement for relevant work experience. The Tribunal emphasised that the regulations allowed for work experience to substitute for formal qualifications, and the delegate had not properly applied this provision. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the delegate's decision was not supported by the evidence and that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. The Tribunal ordered that the decision under review be remitted to the delegate for a fresh decision.