Wongso (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 4714
•8 October 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Wongso (Migration) [2018] AATA 4714
[2018] AATA 4714
8 October 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, specifically the Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa in the Graduate Work stream. The applicant sought review of a decision concerning their eligibility for this visa. The Tribunal, constituted by Amanda Mendes Da Costa, was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the primary criteria for the visa, which relate to their skills and suitability for their nominated occupation.
The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of clauses 485.223 and 485.224 of Schedule 2 to the relevant regulations. Clause 485.223 requires evidence that the applicant had applied for a skills assessment by a relevant assessing authority for their nominated skilled occupation at the time of the visa application. Clause 485.224, in turn, mandates that the applicant's skills must have been assessed as suitable for the nominated occupation by a relevant assessing authority within the preceding three years, and that any validity period for such an assessment must not have expired.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had met the requirements of clause 485.223, as their visa application was accompanied by evidence of an application for a skills assessment by Engineers Australia, the relevant assessing authority for the nominated occupation of Engineering Technologist. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had met the requirements of clause 485.224(1), having provided written verification from Engineers Australia dated 11 September 2018, confirming their skills were assessed as suitable for the nominated occupation. The Tribunal also noted that this assessment was not subject to a specific validity period.
Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the specified criteria for the Subclass 485 visa. The matter was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant had satisfied clauses 485.223 and 485.224(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of clauses 485.223 and 485.224 of Schedule 2 to the relevant regulations. Clause 485.223 requires evidence that the applicant had applied for a skills assessment by a relevant assessing authority for their nominated skilled occupation at the time of the visa application. Clause 485.224, in turn, mandates that the applicant's skills must have been assessed as suitable for the nominated occupation by a relevant assessing authority within the preceding three years, and that any validity period for such an assessment must not have expired.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had met the requirements of clause 485.223, as their visa application was accompanied by evidence of an application for a skills assessment by Engineers Australia, the relevant assessing authority for the nominated occupation of Engineering Technologist. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had met the requirements of clause 485.224(1), having provided written verification from Engineers Australia dated 11 September 2018, confirming their skills were assessed as suitable for the nominated occupation. The Tribunal also noted that this assessment was not subject to a specific validity period.
Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the specified criteria for the Subclass 485 visa. The matter was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant had satisfied clauses 485.223 and 485.224(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Wongso (Migration) [2018] AATA 4714
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0