Yap (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457, where the primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements of paragraph 457.223(4)(da) of the Regulations, concerning the applicant's skills, qualifications, and employment background for the nominated occupation. The Tribunal also considered paragraph 457.223(4)(e) to be relevant.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant possessed the necessary skills, qualifications, and employment background for the nominated occupation, as required by paragraph 457.223(4)(da), and if the applicant had demonstrated these skills in the manner specified by the Minister, as per paragraph 457.223(4)(e). The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's evidence against the criteria outlined in the Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM3) and the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO).

The Tribunal reasoned that when assessing paragraph 457.223(4)(da), it should refer to ANZSCO for the principal source of information on skill requirements, considering the 'Indicative Skill Level' rather than the general ANZSCO Skill Level. The Tribunal noted that an applicant may still meet the criterion if they possess skills and experience covering the bulk or core elements of the occupation, even if they do not cover every prescribed task, and that specialisation in a range of tasks is acceptable for this program. The Tribunal also considered the provisions within PAM3 regarding when a mandatory skills assessment is not required and how decision-makers should proceed based on the information provided.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the application should be remitted for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the applicant meets the criteria under paragraph 457.223(4)(da) and paragraph 457.223(4)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and that the Minister should consider the remaining criteria.