Versatile Property Services (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the refusal of a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa (Subclass 482) under the Labour Agreement stream. The applicant, who had previously held a Subclass 457 visa sponsored by Anderson Recruitment and Training Pty Ltd for the occupation of Sales and Marketing Manager, had ceased employment with that sponsor in May 2017. Subsequently, the applicant obtained bridging visas, which were subject to condition 8107, a work limitation. The applicant then commenced employment as a Carpenter with Onnix Construction Pty Ltd in August 2020, and a nomination for this occupation under a labour agreement was approved in May 2023. The Department refused the applicant's Subclass 482 visa application, finding a breach of condition 8107 of his bridging visa due to working as a Carpenter, which was not the occupation listed in his most recently approved nomination at that time.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had met the requirements of clause 482.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that an applicant, if in Australia, must have complied substantially with the conditions that applied to their last substantive visa and any subsequent bridging visas. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's employment as a Carpenter constituted a breach of condition 8107, thereby failing the substantial compliance requirement.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's Bridging A visa, granted in June 2020, was subject to condition 8107, which stipulated that the holder must only work in the occupation listed in the most recently approved nomination. The applicant's most recently approved nomination at the time of commencing employment with Onnix Construction Pty Ltd was for Sales and Marketing Manager. By commencing work as a Carpenter, the applicant did not work in the nominated occupation and therefore breached condition 8107 of his Bridging A visa. The Tribunal found that this breach meant the applicant had not substantially complied with his visa conditions as required by clause 482.211.

Consequently, as the applicant failed to meet an essential requirement for the visa, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The decision not to grant the applicant a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa was upheld.