Vekariya (Migration)

Case

[2022] AATA 1954

15 June 2022


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Vekariya (Migration) [2022] AATA 1954 [2022] AATA 1954 15 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr Vekariya, who sought review of a decision not to grant him a Skilled - Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visa. The applicant had nominated the occupation of Engineering Technologist.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the points test criterion for the visa. This involved determining if the applicant's assessed score met the score stated in his invitation to apply and the "qualifying score" as prescribed by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and its associated regulations, specifically Schedule 6D and Legislative Instrument IMMI 18/051. The Tribunal was required to consider the points applicable at the time of the delegate's assessment and the current assessment, applying whichever was more favourable to the applicant.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant confirmed he required 90 points for the visa and had undertaken a PTE Test on 29 January 2019, achieving a score of 80. The applicant did not claim overseas work experience in his nominated occupation and had not undertaken an Australian Professional Year. Evidence was provided of his Bachelor of Engineering from Gujarat Technological University and a Master of Engineering Science from Swinburne University. Based on the applicant not satisfying the required criteria for the grant of the visa, the Tribunal concluded that the secondary applicant, as a member of the family unit, also did not meet the relevant criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled - Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visa.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Jurisdiction

  • Statutory Construction

  • Procedural Fairness

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0