Wong (Migration)

Case

[2019] AATA 2790

13 June 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Wong (Migration) [2019] AATA 2790 [2019] AATA 2790 13 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned a review of a decision regarding a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – Post-Study Work stream. The applicant sought to satisfy the Australian study requirement for the visa. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with Member Lilly Mojsin presiding.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 485.231 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that an applicant must hold a qualification specified by the Minister, awarded by a specified educational institution, and have satisfied the 'Australian study requirement' in the six months preceding the visa application. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's Bachelor of Business (International Resort and Hotel Management) from Torrens University met these criteria, particularly concerning the duration and nature of the study undertaken.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's qualification was indeed specified by the Minister under IMMI 13/013, and the awarding institution, Torrens University, was also specified under IMMI 13/031. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant's study satisfied the 'Australian study requirement' as defined by regulation 1.15F. This involved completing a registered course or courses over at least 16 calendar months, comprising at least two academic years (defined as at least 92 weeks), with all instruction in English, and undertaken in Australia on a study-authorised visa. The evidence indicated the applicant commenced study on 30 September 2015 and completed all course requirements by 12 June 2018, with results confirmed on 10 April 2018, thus meeting the duration and completion criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration. The direction was that the applicant met the criterion under clause 485.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, allowing the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0