Veersing (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, specifically the Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa, post-study work stream. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had met the Australian study requirement for the visa, as the qualification was completed after the visa application was lodged. The delegate had refused the application on the basis that the course completion date, as indicated on the official letter from the university, was after the visa application date.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was the interpretation of the term "completed" in relation to the applicant's Master of Applied Information Technology degree, and whether the applicant had satisfied the Australian study requirement within the prescribed timeframe. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the date of academic completion, as evidenced by the student portal and oral testimony, or the date on the formal letter of completion, was the operative date for meeting the visa criterion. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant held a specified qualification awarded by a specified educational institution and had met the Australian study requirement in the six months immediately preceding the visa application.

The Tribunal reasoned that the definition of "completed" in regulation 1.15F(2) refers to meeting the academic requirements for the award of the qualification. The applicant provided evidence, including oral testimony and information from his student portal, indicating that he had met all academic requirements for his Master of Applied Information Technology degree by 10 July 2020. This date preceded the visa application. While the formal letter of completion was dated 12 February 2021, the Tribunal accepted the applicant's explanation that this date reflected the generation of the letter rather than the actual academic completion. The Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness, and his evidence was consistent with other documentation.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant met the requirements of clause 485.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The matter was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining visa criteria.