Vallurupalli (Migration)

[2022] AATA 402

Vallurupalli (Migration) [2022] AATA 402 (21 February 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Sandeep Chowdary Vallurupalli

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mrs Kamlesh Singh (MARN: 9682717)

CASE NUMBER:  2119119

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/119153

MEMBER:Wan Shum

DATE:21 February 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:

·cl 485.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 21 February 2022 at 5:25pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) –skills assessment – valid assessment outcome provided to tribunal – decision made without hearing necessary – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360(2)(a)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 485.224

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicant applied for the visa on 14 January 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 26 November 2021.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of a skills assessment was not provided as required to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).

3. On review, the applicant provided a copy of his Skills Assessment outcome from TRA TRA20/999359467 dated 9 March 2021. The Tribunal verified the outcome with TRA who confirmed that the applicant holds a valid successful Provisional Skills Assessment in the occupation of Motor Mechanic (General) (ANSZCO code: 321211) and that the outcome was finalised on 9 March 2021. This is within 3 years of the visa application date. The assessment is not expressed to be valid for a particular period. Finally, the assessment appears to have been based on qualifications including a Diploma of Automotive Technology obtained in Australia, most of which was while holding a student visa. The course was completed at Central Australian Institute of Technology, which is registered on CRICOS, and the Tribunal finds that the qualification was obtained as a result of studying a registered course.

4. It is not apparent why this information was not provided to the Department when requested, but considering the new evidence received, the Tribunal is satisfied that the criterion is met and has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

5. In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s 360(2)(a) of the Act.

   DECISION

6. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:

   ·cl 485.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Wan Shum
   Member